BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Joe said it is OK to continue if we stick to the subject.
Please do not try to make this another Israel thread, which some here simply can not discuss rationally.

Jim, following Steve's dismissal of The Community Security Trust (CST) report widely reported in the media, you posted a lot of stuff about the Labour Deputy Leader.
Why?

Do you also dismiss the report Jim?
Watson was elected Deputy Leader by the membership. Why should anyone care what you think of him?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 06:38 AM

Tom Watson has been involved in opposing BDS - the Israeli link to accusations of antisemitism in The Labour part has been well established.
The accusations first appeared when Corbyn announced his intention to support BDS
They died down and then re-appeared when a delegation led by Tom Watson visited Israel.
They died down again and have now resurfaced, prompted by Tom Watson, as Israel has gone viral on expanding illegal settlements on Palestinian owned land - a coincidence too far.
Until someone produces firm evidence of the type of "antisemitism" Labour is supposed to be involved in and how many people are involved in attacking The Jewish People, these are no more than unfounded allegations by pro-Israeli opponents of BDS and right wing political opponents of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership - they have no foundation whatever.
The fact that Israel regards all criticism of their policy as antisemitic is a clear indicartion of what Labour "antisemitism" is - criticism of the Isreali regime
No definition of the term includes that
Produce your examples of antisemitism and you may have an argument - until you do, you haven't
Why should anybody care about Tom Watson's report if it has no foundation in actual fact?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 06:45 AM

You are seriously out of order with your obsessive dredging-up of this, Keith. And I can't believe that you think we won't see through your disingenuousness in trying to insist that we shouldn't make this another "Israel thread." That is precisely what you want and precisely what we don't need all over again. You are a very tiresome man. Remember when you went off on your holiday with your parting shot that you wouldn't be taking any of this shit with you?

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

Incidentally, I did not "dismiss" the report. I dismissed your gnawing away at this well-sucked old bone.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 07:52 AM

to be honest there are more areas of concern than Tom Watson and Israel in the Labour Party.

In many ways one senses it must be a pleasing distraction for those who will not address the problem of how the hell we are going to get elected in the forseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM

"to be honest there are more areas of concern than Tom Watson and Israel in the Labour Party."
Not really Al
Interference in the affairs of a major political party by a right-wing foreign power is as concern-making as it gets.
If Corbyn is not allowed to live up to his promises it doesn't matter two monkeys whether Labour attains power or not - who wants another Blair or Kinnock.... or any of the quislings who have sold out Labour Party principles down the decades?
If a Socialist Labour Government is not possible, a principled and articulate opposition is infinitely preferable to more of the same.
Put the right back into leadership and once they get their feet under the Parliamentary table, you'll never shift them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

'If a Socialist Labour Government is not possible, a principled and articulate opposition is infinitely preferable to more of the same.'

well that's where we disagree. England is a very conservative country. Alot of people voted for a character like Thatcher. Foot, Corbyn and even the much despised Kinnock - their perception by the broad mass of society is that they too left wing.

The Labour Party - even in the hands of flawed individuals has done wondrous things for ordinary people. mobility Allowance, The Open University, minimum wage - things that the tories would never think of.

Fuck principled opposition the people need protecting from the Thatchers of this world. And that means compromises and the tricky business of acquiring power.

If I have a vision of why Labour must be in power - its seeing that bastard Botmmley making up a Gilbert and Sullivan parody sneering at those of of us who spend our lives looking after a disabled partner to a cheering tory conference. They are arseholes, and I don't want them in power.

Yes i would like a more extreme left wing government, but given the disposition of the English people -its not going to happen. A right wing Labour party admisitration is all that is achievable.

And thanks to the dicking about of those who keeping whining about Blairite scum. Even that is looking like a remote possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 09:00 AM

"Anti-Semitic incidents within the Labour party contributed to a record rise in attacks on Jews in the UK last year, a charity report has found."
Totally unsubstantiated - there has been no evidence put forward and no research carried out to suggest that alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party has been the cause of any attacks
It is quite likely that any increase in antisemitism has been caused by those who have linked Israeli policy with The Jewish People - the main culprits being the Israeli regime themselves who have described criticism of its behaviour as "antisemitic"
There is as much evidence to suggest the behaviour of Labour Party has caused attacks on Jews as there is of there being a serious problem with antisemitism - none whatever, and there never will be until that anti-Semitism is defined and enumerated.
"So tell us all Shaw, what is your take on this report that you do not dismiss? "
Why not point out the evidence that the Labour party has had anything to do with attacks on Jews - such serious allegations need substantiation - so far we have only more of the same.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 09:16 AM

How is it possible to discuss this without reference to Israel when the premise of this thread refers to a report on antisemitism?

Also please note that the original Labour party discussion thread was started with no reference to Israel or antisemitism at all

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 to call this thread part 2 of that one does not make much sense.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 09:25 AM

It is interesting to read through the various accounts of this report, including those in the Jewish Press.
Nowhere is it suggested that Labour is the cause and increase in these attacks, in fact The Jewish Press quotes a suggestion that British populism leading up to and following Brexit are responsible.
The suggestion that Labour is in anyway responsible comes from Tom Watson and his anti-BDS stance has been long established - back to the Israeli regime again - another coincidence maybe?
As Sherlock Holmes once said - "the Universe would not be so clumsy"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM

As this and the previous thread have continued without agreement for more than 550 days and almost 2000 individual posts it seem reasonable to assume that agreement will never be reached by the various parties.

Perhaps it is time for all parties to hang up the keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 09:48 AM

all my computer says is

'RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II'

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 10:31 AM

Regarding what the report actually says, this is the only mention The Labour Party gets in its actual wording.

"These factors included the conflict in Gaza and Israel in summer 2014; terrorist attacks on Jewish communities in France and Denmark in 2015, and other terrorism in Europe; and in 2016, high profile allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party; a perceived increase in racism and xenophobia following the EU referendum, including an increase in recorded racial and religious hate crime; and regular, high-profile discussion of antisemitism, racism and hate crime in mainstream media, politics and on social media during the year."

The other causes that were actually suggested were The Gaza Conflict, Terrorist attacks in France, Denmark, and elsewhere, an increase following THE BREXIT REFERENDUM and media discussion of hate crimes - all carefully avoided in his crusade to show that it was Labour wot dun it!!
Labour involvement remains unsubstantiated accusations by anti BDS groups and anti Corbynites, prepared to use any mud to have him removed.
Using this report as evidence of Labour party antisemitism is a desperate attempt to denigrate it - utter and complete agenda-driven nonsense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

Something else carefully omitted by our OP was included in the report - I wonder why?
This deathless piece of prose on a hand-written leaflet headed and footed by Swastikas was delivered to a charity shop in November.

BREXIT - TRUMP - The final solution
Fuck you kikes, dykes, fags and Niggers
You are all going to the Oven!

Perhaps Mr T and Keith would like to remind us where they stand on Brexit and Trump!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

Well, let's see. Reported antisemitic incidents went up considerably last year. So Keith, rabidly anti-Labour, finds a report in the Telegraph, rabidly anti-Labour, and they connive in shamelessy applying that well-known logical fallacy, post hoc ergo proper hoc, to the findings, namely that the attacks are the result of the "antisemitism crisis" in Labour. I notice Keith didn't choose the BBC report instead, which makes a brief, passing reference only to Labour. Oh no, that wouldn't do because it didn't fit Keith's Labour-smearing mission. Neither did he want to quote Jenny Tonge's sharp criticism of the CST, who accused it, rightly in my view, of displaying a perpetual victim mentality and of failing to help real decent Jewish people.

Neither Keith, the Telegraph nor I know why the reported incidence of attacks went up last year, but I should like to put up a few ideas for consideration:

1. If you fish for reports of attacks you'll get more reports.

2. The self-same right-wing media that appeals most to xenophobes, racists and bigots had been obsessed with antisemitism talk for months in their attempt to smear Labour as much as possible.

3. Global terrorism has fuelled anti-Muslim sentiment, which has a polarising effect on communities such as those in north Manchester and London where large populations of Jews and Muslims are found side by side.

4. The long runup to the referendum was replete with anti-foreigner sentiment which was strengthened by lies about the adverse effects outsiders have on the British way of life, "taking us over" sort of thing. Seems to fit very nicely with the abhorrent conspiracy theories about how Jews are taking over...

5. The continuing actions of the Israeli regime in discriminating against Palestinians and stealing land for illegal settlements whips up anti-Jewish sentiment.

Now I don't know to what extent, if any, those or other factors may have contributed to increased reports of attacks. But here's the crux: neither does Keith, neither does Teribus, neither does the CST and neither does the Telegraph. So to focus on the issue within Labour implying that you've found the cause is dishonest and unscientific. By the way, my little list is in no way intended to imply excuses or justification for these attacks. I shouldn't have to say that, but you never know who's waiting to pounce on you round here, as we found yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM

Teribus/Keith/Bobad - If we accept as given that we all understand how "divide and rule" works,
and which ideological sectors of UK society would most probably succeed in winning from it..

Then you 3, as persistent and obsessed as you are, are mere infinitesimal minor players / disrupters
within the confines of a folk forum of such little consequence
that the wasted time & effort you put into trying to annoy 'us' lefty liberals is just laughable.... 🙄


..as you can probably guess, i've hit a tedium threshold doing houshold chores
and had a quick look here in mudcat..

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 12:13 PM

I've just been doing that as well. Bloody wind blew coal ash all over me as I was emptying the fire just now. 😡Left the hoovering for Mrs Steve - team work. 😉Just off into the kitchen to assemble my ingredients for the whore's spaghetti we're having for tea and I've just found a £7.99 magnum of Lidl's Nero d'Avola I didn't know I had. 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM

You've had a summary of the report Keith highlighted, you either cross-posted or or decided to pass it off as a "load of made-up shit"
Doesn't matter really - the report says what it says and Brexit features large in it - Labour does not
Keith used it to attack Labour - Heaven forfend that you two should fall out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 12:40 PM

Steve,
"unbelievable!" was my response to Keith having the brass neck to reopen this shagged-out topic,

It was back in the news Steve.
It was on the BBC R4 Today Programme yesterday morning, on the BBC site, Sky News, Evening Standard and in the Telegraph, so not widely considered to be "unbelievable."
A serious report suggesting that Labour anti-Semitism contributed to a rise in anti-Semitic attacks.
Of course that merited a mention in a thread for discussing the party, especially when endorsed by the Deputy Leader!

Jim, again you post loads of stuff about Watson without telling us how it is relevant!

Dave, of course we can discuss the Labour Party, including its anti-Semitism, without needing to bring Israel into it!
Israel seems to be an obsession with some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Jim, I know other contributory factors were suggested for the rise in anti-Semitic attacks, but Labour's anti-Semitism was up there and that makes it relevant to any current discussion about Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 12:54 PM

Dave, of course we can discuss the Labour Party, including its anti-Semitism, without needing to bring Israel into it!

How much do you want to bet that it can't happen here?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 12:56 PM

Yes Dave, but Joe has given the gypsies' warning to keep to the subject and he might enforce it with deletions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM

Now listen up for once, cloth-ears. I shall say this only twenty more times (my calculation as to how many times I'll have to say it before it finally sinks into whatever pile of poo passes for your brainbox). "Unbelievable" referred to you dredging this tired old rubbish up yet again. It most emphatically did NOT refer to any column, item, newsflash, bulletin, anecdote, report, op-ed, programme, or anything else. It really was all about you, Keith. As most things you "discuss" are all about you anyway, I thought you'd be delighted. And it really is only about the Labour Party in the most tangential way anyway, isn't it? Oops, sorry, except in the minds of the Daily Torygraph and your good self, of course, and whatever ragbag collection of other anti-Labour pro-Israeli regime obsessives you can muster. Now toddle off and go and pester someone else. Sorry, Jim, I don't mean you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

As new and relevant news items come up, of course it is right and proper that old threads are revived.

The report was not specifically about anti-Semitism it dealt with the increase in reported "Hate Crime" in 2016 and it highlighted various causes. It mentioned that anti-Semitic hate crimes accounted for one-third of all hate crimes reported and again IIRC that was the largest single category. The main identifiable reason given for the increase in 2016 was the apparent lack of concern about "high profile allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 01:28 PM

"but Labour's anti-Semitism was up there and that makes it relevant to any current discussion about Labour."
No it wasn't Keith - accusations of Labour was up there - no suggestion that the accusations were ever substantiated and certainly no suggestion that Labour antisemitism was in any way a contributory factor to the rise in antisemitism
It is yet another attempt by you to denigrate Labour and, as with all the others it has bounced up and smacked you in the nose.
You know as well as I do that if any substance o the accusations against Labour had in any way featured in the rise of antisemitism it would have featured large in the report.
"Jim, again you post loads of stuff about Watson without telling us how it is relevant!"
Please don't start this again Keith - you put up this reort to denigrate Labout - the only person in the report who makes accusations against Labour is Watson - Watson is Israel's poodle and he almost certainly was the cause of the accusation reaching the proportions it did.
Please do not suggest again that I have not explained why information on Watson is relevant.
The fact that he appeared in your carefully edited piece about the report make any information we have on him relevant to this discussion - you introduced him - not me, and you have used him for a large part of this argument   
He is a right wing, anti Corbynite mouthpiece of the Israeli regime and his dishonest behaviour in Parliament makes him an extremely unreliable source of information - a greedy career politician .
We can safely assume that, although they both feature the report RAISED BY YOU neither Trump not Brexit are going to be responded to by you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM

"The main identifiable reason given for the increase in 2016 was the apparent lack of concern about "high profile allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party"

And who identified this "reason?" Where's the evidence that the allegations led to the increase? There IS no evidence, is there? It's just a supposition to fit the agenda of anti-Labour obsessives. If you have evidence for a link, let's be having it. Both Jim and I have given you plenty of other potential factors that may plausibly be involved. We can't prove any of those either and we haven't tried to. But I'm damn sure you can't prove this one. I suggest that you contemplate whether the distrust of The Other whipped up by the likes of your hero Farage might just have a little to do with it. Can't prove that either but it isn't too easy to dismiss, is it? Dare say you'll try...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

One of the nastiest cases of shooting oneself in the foot I've ever come across
If there had been antisemitism in the Labour party, it would have been described as just that instead it was "allegations"
It would have featured largely in the report as "figures of authority committing acts of antisemitism" instead of allegations.
It does implicate the racist attacks as a result of Brexit, which put's the OPer and his mate, both Brexiters, in a position of having to respond to or (more likely) ignore that Brexit is partially responsible for the rise in antisemitism
The report also includes the Fascist leaflet implicating Trumpists
Oh dear!!
Nurse - the screens, the screens!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 03:50 PM

The continuing actions of the Israeli regime in discriminating against Palestinians and stealing land for illegal settlements

Which, of course they don't do - it is their land and they have every right to build and live on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 05:26 PM

Why, of course! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Feb 17 - 06:48 PM

Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes but I see you're coming around 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 02:54 AM

"And who identified this "reason?" Where's the evidence that the allegations led to the increase? There IS no evidence, is there? It's just a supposition to fit the agenda of anti-Labour obsessives." - Steve Shaw

How about OULC, Baroness Royall, Labour's NEC, The Community Security Trust, UCL. Strange that the vast majority of these "anti-Labour obsessives" all happen to be members of the Labour Party innit Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 03:32 AM

£Where's the evidence that the allegations led to the increase"
THere is no evidence - only unfounded accusations.
The report refers only to "allegations" - no evidence
Allegations are not evidence in any civilised court.
These allegations have been generated by a foreign power and taken up by the right wing of he Labour Party who are opposed to Corbyn's leadership - not the slightest bit "strange"
There is evidence that Brexit is part of the rise of antisemitism - that''s cited in the report, but any evidence that points to the "wrong" conclusion is not worthy of discussion to some people.
It's a fairly safe bet that Trump's Trumpeters will add to the problem, but of course, that won't be worth considering either
The greatest threat to the Jewish People today comes from those who implicate them in the crimes of the Israeli regime - as those crimes continue unchecked, the threat will become a reality.
That's not worth discussing either.
Much of this is covered by Keith's repoort - no longer worth discussing either - a definite backfire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

Steve,
"Unbelievable" referred to you dredging this tired old rubbish up yet again.

Yes, you said that, but I did not dredge anything up. I referred to a breaking news story relevant to the discussion, so what is so unbelievable?

And it really is only about the Labour Party in the most tangential way anyway, isn't it? Oops, sorry, except in the minds of the Daily Torygraph and your good self, of course, and whatever ragbag collection of other anti-Labour pro-Israeli regime obsessives you can muster

The membership elected Deputy Leader of The Labour Party said it was about the Labour Party. Which of those categories does he fit Steve?

Jim,
It is yet another attempt by you to denigrate Labour

It was a prominent news story Jim. I had nothing to do with the conclusions of that report. You are just shooting the messenger.

Keith - you put up this reort to denigrate Labout -

I did not put it up. BBC R4, BBC News and various publications did.

the only person in the report who makes accusations against Labour is Watson

Watson was not involved in the report!

- Watson is Israel's poodle and he almost certainly was the cause of the accusation reaching the proportions it did.

Please clarify this statement Jim.
You seem to be claiming that Labour's Deputy Leader lies against his Party in the service of Israel.
Is that what you really believe Jim?

He is a right wing, anti Corbynite mouthpiece of the Israeli regime

You really do believe that Labour's Deputy Leader lies against his Party in the service of Israel!!!!

We can safely assume that, although they both feature the report RAISED BY YOU neither Trump not Brexit are going to be responded to by you.

I did respond.

The report refers only to "allegations" - no evidence

Yes. It cites them as a contributing to the sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks.

If the Labour leadership says that anti-Semitism is a serious problem for Labour, your denial of it is worthless Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 05:23 AM

I invite you to peruse the thread slightly more carefully, Teribus, in order to find out why you have completely misinterpreted what I've been saying about cause and effect. You either did it on purpose or you're not very bright. The floor is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 05:26 AM

If that isn't dredging up tired old arguments, Keith, well I'm the Queen of Sheba.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

Steve,
You either did it on purpose or you're not very bright.

Third alternative, you are not very good at explaining what you mean.
Good example, your one word post "unbelievable."

If that isn't dredging up tired old arguments, Keith, well I'm the Queen of Sheba.

It is not, Your Majesty.
It is adding discussion of a highly relevant breaking news story to the original debate.

If you are tired of it, why do you keep trying to join in?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM

Well then Jim apply your self same arguments to you claiming that the Brexit campaign and vote resulted in an increase in "hate crime".

The CST commented on the increase in the number of hate crimes reported in 2016 and the fact that one third of them were anti-Semitic attacks. The CST identified the possible reasons for the increase.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 06:58 AM

"It was a prominent news story Jim"
Which had nothing to do with Labour and nothing to do with the title of this thread - which you chose.
"I did not put it up. BBC R4, BBC News and various publications did."
You put the report up as an attack on Labour - it was nothing of the sort - all your own work again
"Watson was not involved in the report!"
Watson's comment was included and he has been a part of accusing Labour of antisemitism on the part of his Israeli mates.
"You really do believe that Labour's Deputy Leader lies against his Party in the service of Israel!!!"
Do I believe politicians lie - tough one that - you're going to have to help me out there
Your "in the services of Israel" distorts what I say - deliberately, no doubt.
He is against BDS - true or false, he is a supporter of the Israeli regime - true or false?
He has helped revive attacks on the Labour Party on at least two occasions after visits to Israel - true or false?
This is an example of your gargantuan effort to denigrate the Labour party by smearing them with charges of antisemitism - true or false?
You have never produced a shred of evidence - true or false?
You have not responded to the Brexit link to antisemitism
The report implicates Brexit in the rise of Antisemitism in Britian - DO YOU AGREE WITH IT?
By including that Nazi poster, it also implicates Trump's victory in that rise - DO YOU AGREE WITH IT?
A simple yes or no will do in either case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 07:20 AM

Well we can all come up with "possible reasons," can't we. But, Teribus, "possible reasons" are not proven causes. You've been given plenty of "possible reasons" for the perceived increase in hate crimes by me and Jim. But you and Keith are obsessed with just one "possible reason," and you seem to wish to eliminate from consideration all the other "possible reasons" and you are trying to erase the word "possible." In my view, the most plausible major reason for any increase in hate crime directed at ethnic minorities last year is the anti-foreigner talk that dominated the referendum campaign for months. I can't prove that but you can't dismiss it either. I do understand that that won't sit well with you and Keith as you both doughtily and unstintingly supported the main anti-foreigner racist, Nigel Farage, but that's your problem, and trying to shift all the blame on to the Labour Party is just blinkered.

And do give it a rest, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 08:05 AM

"Well then Jim apply your self same arguments to you claiming...."
Apart from your infantile use of a continuing use of a typo (seems to be yor comfort blanket) - can we drop the "my claiming" - I "claim" nothing - I put up the findings of the report
Your mate's report links Brexit and Trump with the rise in antisemitism, not me.
You are obviously not going to respond and I doubt if he will, but you, like he, were quick to defend the findings of this report until its implications were pointed out to you.
Of course Brexit was an issue - within days of the announcement racist incidents has rocketed ant there were reports of non-British residents being approached and asked when they were "going home" on the same day.
Trump's racist agenda and his inclusion of an antisemite on his staff is guaranteed to have the same effect.
The persistent practice of the Israeli regime with have the effect of targeting the Jewish People in the same manner, and the fact that he has drawn his support from groups like The Klan and The Tea Party are going to make the U.S. a hotbed of antisemitism, racism and cultural intolerance.
Good days ahead.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 08:14 AM

Sorry - should be two separate sentences
" The fact that Trump has drawn his support from groups like The Klan and The Tea Party are going to make the U.S. a hotbed of antisemitism, racism and cultural intolerance.

The persistent practice of the Israeli regime with have the effect of targeting the Jewish People in the same manner,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM

Jim,
Do I believe politicians lie - tough one that - you're going to have to help me out there

Not what I asked Jim.
I asked if YOU believe that THIS politician lies against his OWN PARTY on behalf of the government of Israel.
The two quotes make it very clear that you do, but it is so bizarre that you should clarify your position.
Will you Jim, or like Diane Abbott are you ashamed to reveal what you think?
Please do not duck this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 09:31 AM

Steve,
Well we can all come up with "possible reasons," can't we. But, Teribus, "possible reasons" are not proven causes.

It was the reputable CST report that concluded that Labour's anti-Semitism probably contributed to the rise in such attacks.
Such a thing is not capable of proof, any more than it can be proved that Brexit contributed to racist attacks, but Jim made a big issue of that!

But you and Keith are obsessed with just one "possible reason,"

No. We acknowledged the other possible reasons but this thread is about Labour.

and you seem to wish to eliminate from consideration all the other "possible reasons"

No. We just highlighted the one that was relevant to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 10:54 AM

I'm sorry, but, if you wish to continue to try to pin the blame on Labour for the alleged rise in hate crime, then all the other possible reasons are highly-relevant to this thread, and you are not going to dictate to us what we can and can't include. Were it not for you bringing this up as a blame-Labour issue yet again we wouldn't even be discussing those other possible reasons, would we? And your calling the CST "reputable" in order to dignify your claims (do you ever do anything honestly?) is highly debatable. Jenny Tonge didn't think so, and, though I'm no fan of hers, I'd take her opinion over yours any day of the week.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM

Repeat after me...

DON'T
FEED
THE
TROLLS

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 11:47 AM

I agree Backwoodsman, Keith should stop feeding the trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 12:18 PM

"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?
Corbyn gives all the appearance of being an honest, principled politician – it says what needs to be said your politics when you are prepared to put in so much time and effort to denigrating such a man
Haven't we had enough shitty, dishonest politicians?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 12:28 PM

"It was the reputable CST report that concluded that Labour's anti-Semitism probably contributed to the rise in such attacks."
No it was not - it never accused Labour of antisemitism - it only said there had been accusations - and that is all there have been
There is no evidence that these accuastions are true and it would underline the entire report if it had suggested there was
The exact wording was "high profile allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party; "
I ask again
The report accuses both Brexit and Trum of being the cause of the rise in Antisemitism - do you agree with this
PLEASE DO NOT DUCK THIS ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 12:41 PM

Steve,
I'm sorry, but, if you wish to continue to try to pin the blame on Labour for the alleged rise in hate crime

Continue? I never have and never would. Made up shit instead of argument again Steve.

What do you mean " alleged rise in hate crime?"
Are you denying the fact?

Were it not for you bringing this up as a blame-Labour issue yet again

Made up shit instead of argument again Steve.
I did not play any part in the compilation of the report that implicated Labour's anti-Semitism. I just posted about it because it was completely relevant to this discussion.

And your calling the CST "reputable" in order to dignify your claims (do you ever do anything honestly?) is highly debatable.

The police, BBC, Independent and Huff Post regard it as reputable.
No-one except you has defended what Tonge said about them.

Jim,
The report accuses both Brexit and Trum of being the cause of the rise in Antisemitism - do you agree with this
PLEASE DO NOT DUCK THIS ONE

Duck it? I have already acknowledged it, and more than once.
Your wording is wrong though. The report does not "accuse" anything of being the "cause."

There is no evidence that these accuastions are true

Well, the Party leadership have recognised Labour's anti-Semitism problem, so your denial of it is worth nothing.

Now Jim, do you believe that Watson tells lies against his own Party?
If so, what is his motivation?
Please do not duck this yet again!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM

Yes, alleged. I know that the only reason you wish to consider is "Labour's serious antisemitism problem," so in your blinkered state you neglected one of my other potential reasons, which was that you'll get more reports if you fish for them. Alleged means I'm not convinced, though I'm not dismissive, as yiu seem to think. And you seriously gave yourself away apropos of the rest of your denial bullshit when you referred in your post to "Labour's antisemitism problem." Perhaps, if you don't want to be accused of obsessive bias, you should do what I did and consider using the word "alleged."

Can you prove that each of those organisations called the report "reputable?" Can you prove that I'm the only person in the world who agrees with Jenny Tonge? As a matter of fact, the report is nowhere near as supportive of your cause as you seem to think. Nuance in language is not your strong point, as you proved with your Wheatcroft fiasco. Go and have another read. Do take your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 01:07 PM

"Duck it? I have already acknowledged it, and more than once."
So you agree with their conclusions - do I have that right?
"Now Jim, do you believe that Watson tells lies against his own Party?
If so, what is his motivation?"
For Christs sake Keith - I've just given it for the third time
Where has the report claimed Labour to be guilty of attisemitism? - you lied
Where is your evidence that evidence exists? - you lied
Where are your examples of antisemitism - you have produced none
Where has the Labout party ever admitted to a serious problem with antisemitism - it never has - you lead
"Continue? I never have and never would. Made up shit instead of argument again Steve."
What the ****s this then
"It was the reputable CST report that concluded that Labour's anti-Semitism probably contributed to the rise in such attacks."
You lied
Why are you7 lying to denigrate a decent leader
You are sa serious piece of work - you need another holiday
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM

THe position remains exactly the same as it was when Keith started all this all those centuries ago
Not one scrap of evidence has come to light that Labour has ever has a problem with antisemitism - serious or otherwise.
No evidence ahs been found, no admissions have been made, no antisemitism has ever been specified to suggest that there is a "serious" problem
We do know that the original accusation came within weeks of Corbyn declaring his support of BDS
The accusations have disappeared twice, only to be revived when right wing "Friends of Israel" returned from sponsored visits there.
No-one has ever described the type of "antisemitism" that is supposed to be coming from The Labour Party and no figures have ever been produced.
Two enquiries have taken place - both found no evidence.
End of story
We also know that last April the Tory Party was accused of Islamophobia by respected leaders of the British Muslim community.
The only response has been to appont Borish Johnson, a racist, Home Secretary
The Tory Prime Minister has now climbed into bed with Arch-racist, Donald Trump who has has his racist policies halted by the American Courts and who ha declared that he will quash any law that makes his racict and unconstitutional policies illegal   
May's bedfellow has also appointed an arch-antisemite onto his staff - a nice three-in-a-bed for Mayflower
Who are the racists in Britain - Labour or Tory - answers on a postcard please
Let's leave keith to stew in his own bile
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 02:38 PM

Steve,
Can you prove that each of those organisations called the report "reputable?"

The media organisations reported the CST report without expressing any reservations or misgivings about the CST.
If they did not consider it reputable, they would report criticisms of it. None did.
Re Police,
BBC, "The CST, which works with police to gather data, said recorded incidents last had increased by 36% on 2015."

The police would not work with an organisation they did not believe to be reputable.
And, that is the source if the stats. that you question.

Can you prove that I'm the only person in the world who agrees with Jenny Tonge?

Not provable. There might be some other nut somewhere, but I can't find one. Can you?

Jim,
So you agree with their conclusions - do I have that right?

Not qualified Jim, but they are a reputable group so they should not be dismissed.

If so, what is his motivation?"
For Christs sake Keith - I've just given it for the third time

You mean his allegiance to Israel? That is why he lies against Labour?

Where is your evidence that evidence exists?

I have shown, with quotes, that the leadership acknowledges the fact.

"It was the reputable CST report that concluded that Labour's anti-Semitism probably contributed to the rise in such attacks."
You lied

No. That is the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 17 - 03:25 PM

Backwoodsman's right again lads
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 05:38 AM

Of course you can all withdraw from the discussion, but do not blame it on non-existent trolling.
You are just incapable of replying, or of making a case.

I am disappointed Jim that you could not answer the simple, unloaded question, "Do you believe that Watson lies against his Party."
You say as much over and over, but when made to see how ridiculous it is, you scurry off and hide.
At least I have made you rethink some of your delusional beliefs.

Likewise your claim that Watson is "a poodle of" and "a mouthpiece for" the Israeli Government!
No wonder you feel you have to hide!
You have made yourself ridiculous.

BWM, nothing I have said here can be described as trolling.
Just discussing facts.
Sadly they are facts that some people here can not deal with.

Steve, I have answered all your points.
I take it you have nothing else to say either.
Off you go then.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 05:48 AM

CAN SOME HUMANE FORUM FAIRY WHO HAPPENS TO BE IN THE VICINITY PLEASE CLOSE DOWN THIS MINDLESSLY OBSESSIVE ONE-MAN CAMPAIGN - IT REALLY IS THE KINDEST ACTION TO TAKE.
SOMEONE PUT HIM OUT OF ALL OUR MISERIES, PLEASE!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! YOUR RESPONSES ARE FOOD, DRINK AND OXYGEN TO THEM. DO NOT RESPOND TO THEM!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM

The other thread got closed before you had chance to answer my question, Keith. Probably best that you start another thread to do so though.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 08:02 AM

I'm a troll
You're a troll
Kiss me
And I'll turn into a prince
Suddenly

With apologies to Robert Charlebois.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 09:19 AM

Dave,
Glad you enjoyed it, Keith and that you are back safe and sound. Shame nothing seems to have altered on here :-( Do you not fancy sharing your holiday experiences with us instead of going through all the same old arguments with the same people?

I would be delighted to share my holiday stories, but in PMs.
I get very annoyed when others start talking about such things on a discussion thread, and I doubt I am alone in that.

This was not "the same old arguments " though. It was a new discussion about a brand new report, though it was relevant to the previous discussion.

Jim, do you really believe that Watson tells lies against his own Party for the Israeli government, for which he is a "poodle" and a "mouhpiece?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 09:29 AM

I'll answer that. Watson can't be trusted. He's right-wing old guard in sentiment and hates Corbyn and he's very pro-Israel regime. Now, would you like to hear of my fantastic week in Puglia last June?* Or my sojourn in Siracusa in September? You won't regret it! I can tell you about the best wines and recommend great eateries and gelateria!



*Unfortunately, I was in Puglia during the week England got kicked out the Euros and the UK got kicked out of the EU. The Puglian people I spoke to were devastated by both events. I did vote by post, by the way. I'm not telling you which way.   Mind yer biz!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

Ah well. One can but try to make the world a better place.

Yes please, Steve. I would love to hear about it. We are off on our sheep shagging weekend in Ribblehead in a couple of weeks. Won't get the Italian sunshine but the tales will be very tellable :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 09:58 AM

Well where shall I start, Dave? Like to hear about our day trip to Alberobello to see the trulli houses that are in all those Grauniad holiday ads? Lovely place! And we saw a wedding there which appeared to be attended by a small contingent of mafiosi (the blokes all seem to dress like that for weddings in Italy, to be fair). By the way, I hope this is annoying almost no-one here! Happy birthday by the way, Dave!


Now where were we...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:04 AM

Hey Dave, I did a two-week field course at Malham Tarn Field Centre in 1970. The sun hardly went in and it almost burnt our arses off. If I ever get skin cancer I'll put it down to that fortnight. Mind you, it was July, not back-end. Are the ewes more receptive at this time of year? Er Dave, it is just ewes I hope...😜

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:10 AM

Thank you Steve. I can't see how pleasantries can annoy anyone but as they say in Cleckhuddersfaxwyke, there's nowt so queer as folk.

I think I have related the tale before. The fist debate I attended was at 6th form college (De La Salle, Salford. 1969) I have no idea what the debate was about but it was won by the lad who discovered his opponent had been involved with a young lady rubbing 'Pretty Peach' body lotion on his chest. That type of things happens all over the place, including parliament (pigs heads anyone?) Dunno why some think it should not happen here.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM

Only ewe can make the world go round

I know I'll never find another ewe

Any more?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:16 AM

De La Salle? We played them a cricket in 1968 when I was in the Thornleigh first eleven. They won. We should have had a fist debate instead. We were reet bloody hard, us Thornleigh lads, tha knows...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM

Hear about the sheep who got sunburned on holiday?


It had gone to the baaaa-hamas...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

Trolls!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM

Nah, boobs, this is MUCH nicer than Keith burbling on about "Labour's antisemitism problem!" We've been hearing about that for yonks! Bor-ing! Where did you go on YOUR last holiday? Lemme guess! Mecca??

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 11:14 AM

Troll!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

It's much better than his usual comments, Steve, and makes about as much sense.

I think he probably went to Trondheim.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 11:36 AM

Little Sir Echo!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 11:38 AM

I played Cricket for De La Salle in 1968 and was in the debating society all through my years there (1966 to 1972)

However in 1968 I was thirteen and not in the first team.

That year I discovered girls and motorbikes, my interest in cricket and debating subsisded somewhat.

Referring to holidays I visited a cracking bar in Tully Cross, Co Galway last month had a stupendous afternoon singing and playing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 01:06 PM

That's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Feb 17 - 01:09 PM

You couldn't discover girls at Thornleigh. Well you could go up to the other end of Bolton to the convent school but there was an impregnable armed guard of nuns awaiting. And non-Catholic girls would have seen us cast into hellfire, so that wasn't an option. I made it though. More about my early life on request. Don't mention The Summer Of Love.

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?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:42 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 07:40 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 - 07:55 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:40 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 01:54 PM

"The original thread bore"


Bwahahahaha!

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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 03:43 PM

Well I think it's "bad forum etiquette" to clutter up the forum with yet another "Labour serious antisemitism issue" thread. I think it's good forum etiquette instead to have pleasant little conflabs about reminiscences, wild flowers and the Dales. Think of it as painting over a soiled, flaking, graffiti-riddled wall with a lovely new layer of paint, or covering it over with a beautiful huge poster of the Birth Of Venus. Or the Rokeby Venus. Any Venus!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:02 PM

Just on a point of order, Dave and Jim, it's not 'Mechano', it's 'Meccano'. Apologies for my pedantry! 😉

And thanks for my ten votes, Steve. All ten for beer and holidays! 👍😎

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:12 PM

This is a folk and blues music forum. It has a BS section in which anything can be discussed. As far as I remember the term BS stands for Bull Shit. That is what these threads are supposed to be and, more often than not, are. To take them seriously is the crazy bit.

But, if it makes you any happier, I am sure most Labour MPs have holidays. Maybe some of them visit the Yorkshire Dales or Italy. Perhaps one or two of them even have an interest in botany. So, everything discussed here has had relevance to a discussion on the Labour party.

Now, Steve, any chance of getting in touch with Banksy to make a proper job of that paint over?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:18 PM

On reflection, a damn sight more Labour MPs and supporters go on holiday, visit the Dales and enjoy wild flowers than indulge in antsemitic activities :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 04:20 PM

Thanks BWM. I guess I have to rename my leggot set as well...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 05:02 PM

LOL! 😄

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 05:27 PM

Trolls!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 05:40 PM

Strolls?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 05:56 PM

Ask not for whom the Bell Trolls. Or vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 06:14 PM

All ten votes in favour? Plus mine and Dave's and Raggytash's if I may be so presumptuous? Plus Greg's, 'appen? Then it's a wrap! They lose! We are the metaphorical Banksies!

(Well at least we're Bill the painter and decorator from up the road. No job too small, strictly cash. Times are 'ard, you know...)

I'll have to check with Jim about his vote...hope he's not doing a Diane Abbott on us...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 06:29 PM

I support Jeremy Corbyn.

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

Me too. Good bloke. But his days are numbered, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 06:46 PM

Good bloke if that`s the kind of bloke that floats your boat. A lot of people including those in his own party will be happy to see his ass out the door. The party would do well to choose a leader who doesn`t cozy up to terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 06:53 PM

It trolls for thee.

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

Didn't Ronald Reagan cosy up to terrorists? Do we count General Pinochet as a terrorist? It wasn't us lefties who cosied up to them, was it?

You're right, Greg. There's an unidentified irritant afoot!

Did I ever tell you about the time in that caravan near Cleveleys when there was a cat fight on the roof in the middle of the night? Damn near drove us home off our hols, it was so terrifying!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 07:16 PM

Anyway, boobs, enough of this. You are interrupting a very serious discussion of holidays, schoolday reminiscences, the lovely Dales and wild flowers. AND the Forty Martyrs, you heathen you! I've decided to ignore you completely in this thread from now on, and I may not be alone in that either. So rattle on, dear boy, rattle thou on! Shake it up, baby!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 08:00 PM

No wonder the Labour party is in the toilet when you see shit like this which, by the way, is the same shit we have seen from Mudcat's own Labour supporters :

A newly elected official in a local chapter of the UK Labour Party has accused the "Israel lobby" of controlling the British government, the volunteer-led charity the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism reported on Friday.

According to the report, Rebecca Massey, the Interim Chair of Central Hove, Brunswick and Adelaide, has been using the Twitter handle @beckycheabas not only to attack the Jewish state — calling it "pathological" and "barbaric" — but to libel Jews under the International Definition of Antisemitism, adopted by the British government in December.

The Algemeiner


On another occasion, Massey tweeted an article explaining how the "Israel lobby manufactured the UK Labour Party's antisemitism crisis", as if that crisis were not as a result of British Jews decrying egregious antisemitic statements by senior Labour Party figures. Since these allegations did not come from Israel but were from British Jews, the "Israel lobby" is a misnomer: she means a 'Jewish lobby' again deploying what the International Definition refers to as "the myth…of Jews controlling the…government or other societal institutions."

Campaign Against Antisemitism

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 08:06 PM

These people have no case - either point that out or leave it there.
Theuy ghave no evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party - end of story
If they had evidence they would have produced it long ago - nor decent society finds anybody guilty of anything without specifying the Charges.
First Keith blamed Corbyn for suppressing the report - the report is in the mands of the Israelis yet they have nor revealed the nature of the so called "antisemitism"
Asked why the Jewish members of Parliament haven't revealed the nature of the accusations, Keith went on to blame the Jewish members for hushing it up "for the good of the party - a 'Jewish Plot' - does that remind anybody of a period of world history.
Why are you even talking to these people - so called defenders of The Jewish People who refuse to comment on Trump's appointing of an extreme antisemite and the fact that Trump's victory is being used to get France's leading antisemitic family in control of that country - LePen was even photographed at Trump Tower, gert these gallant battlers against antisemitism refuse to say a word.
One memorable phrase Thatcher used during her erign of terror as "The oxygen of publicity" and that is exactly what you are giving this sad shower.
For Christ's sake stop calling each other schoolyard names - you are as bad as one another - they are dragging you down to their level.
"Meccano"
Thanks for the heads-up BWM - I lost the box to my set a long time ago.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 08:13 PM

Hey Dave, I forgot to mention Gordale Scar, star location of the Dales and the Pennine Way (slightly off-route, as I recall), one of the few strongholds of the common juniper and home to a very rare sedge, just round the corner from Malham Cove. But what a place! And just across the road is Janet's Foss hidden in the trees, one of those little amphitheatre waterfalls where you could imagine fairies dancing around in the sprinkly light. Late May/early June on a sunshiny day is the best time to see nature in all its glory and to remember why you're an atheist!

Anybody here know Upper Teesdale?

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

Couple of months ago, Jim, I picked up a copy of the Jewish News in Radcliffe Asda (or was it the Jewish Telegraph, may have got the name wrong). I take my mum shopping to Prestwich and Whitefield when I'm there, an area with a large Jewish population, and we might go into a caff for a butty and a pot of tea. As far as I can see, people there are down to earth and they get on. Bit of a snapshot I know, but I was brought up round there, as was my mum and all her clan and I did a lot of my supping in the pubs round Heaton Park. Can't deny that a lot of people haven't got much time for anyone who are identifiably not of their own ethnic ilk, or whatever you want to call it, but I don't see much outright animosity. You wouldn't think so, though, reading that paper. It read like a single-minded siege-mentality anti-Labour Party campaign document. That stuff was on nearly every page. It made me bloody fume to think how the real enemies of ordinary working people, the sodding Tories, were being given a bye. Any kind of ethnic or racial intolerance has got to be sharply tackled and never overlooked or indulged, but people can't, and don't, and won't, live their whole lives under siege. I'll discuss antisemitism (as long as it's the real thing and not some pro-Netanyahu confection of the type our two resident carriers of the flame peddle) 'til the cows come home, but never letting go of it so that you can live your life is a baleful and negative way to carry on. That's how I see all these bloody anti-Labour, anti-Israeli regime-criticism threads these days. We've had a lot of it and it's well getting on me tits. I like everybody who likes me, whether they're black, white, pink, brown, Jews, Muslims or the missus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 09:24 PM

"Anyone who ARE," dammit?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Feb 17 - 10:14 PM

It read like a single-minded siege-mentality anti-Labour Party campaign document.

And rightly so, wot! With all the disgusting spew issuing forth from the mouths of party members one would think we're in Weimar bleedin' Germany or sumphin', eh lads.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 03:18 AM

There is some stuff in Gordale beck that goes right back to the origins of life on this planet. Tufa? Something like that. Anyway, it is the stuff that they reckon kicked off oxygenation. It was on a Bear Grills documentary.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM

My experience is the opposite Steve
I have never read the Jewish press in my life until recently, when I started taking Harretz on line - I should imagine that, like ny other community, the press seldom reflects the opinions of any other community across the board, just those with access to the media.
I moved from Liverpool to Manchester in 1965 and immediately, through my interests in politics and music, immediately came into contact with Jewish people who shared those interests - all either supporters of either Labour or other left-wing groups and many of them active in community groups or trades unions and virtually all from a refugee background.
They were like any other people - good, bad, intermediate.
I had know Jewish people earlier, but it hadn't registered they were Jewish - I was brought up in a family that regarded people as being people without having to hang a label on them (or sew an identification tag on their arm!).
While those who I knew were very aware of their heritage and their history, because of their recent experiences particularly, they did not cut themselves off from those outside their faith but were friends, comrades or fellow trades unionists.
It was from them I learned a little of Jewish recent history and it was eventually from them that I learned to mistrust and eventually despise those right-wingers who are now running Israel - though it lost me a treasured girl-friend in the process.
When my dad was killed in a road accident, four strangers who had seen the announcement in the Liverpool Echo, turned up for the funeral - they had fought alongside my dad in Spain and one of them had gone to Palestine after the war to fight for a new State -
We spent the afternoon talking of their experiences - an education - these people where giants of human beings compared to this little group of inhuman, extremist hate merchants.
I've never been a member of the Labour Party, but I've known enough people who have to realise that it is totally illogical to suggest, without a single practical example, that a party that was founded on the dream of improving society for the better, should be antisemitic - almost as illogical as finding someone guilty of an accusation without specifying what they re guilty of.
For ***** sake let's move on and leave these people to the comfort of their padded cells
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
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?

It would be stupid Jim, but who are those people and where do they post?

Now Jim, are you going to duck this one too?
Can you identify one single "extremist right-wing claim" ?

If you can not you are making shit up and lying again.

Please prove me wrong and put up an example.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 04:37 AM

Talking of favourite places, there is a road near Clifden on the Connemara that leads out across a bog. There are a myriad of Loughs that shine like jewels all across the vast plain and a range of mountains, the Twelve Bens, that flank one side of the it. The sea provides another boundary. It is utterly beautiful, peaceful and although I know little about Botany the plant life is very varied.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 04:41 AM

Dave,
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.

Yes there was.
The thread title limited the debate to discussion of the Labour Party.

Your little group clearly do not want to discuss that any more.
Fine. Stay away.
It is trolling to try to prevent discussion by those who are interested, using bullying and intimidation from a whole pack of you to discourage decent folk from discussing what they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM

Jim,
These are not a "loaded questions."

Do you believe that Watson lies to harm his own party?

I am not asking if he ever lies at all, just whether he lies to damage his own party whose members elected him Deputy Leader.

And, if he does, does he do it for the Government of Israel.

We all know he has close ties with Israel's Labour Party, but not with its current Right Wing government which a Lefty like him reviles.
You will never hear him defend settlements.

So, Jim and Steve, do you really believe that he lies against his Party for the government of Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM

Unbelievable. This whole fucking thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM

Well who would have thought that extolling the beauty of the Dales or Robin Hoods Bay or the Connemara would one day be considered bullying and intimidating.

What a strange world we live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM

Jim,
Theuy ghave no evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party - end of story
If they had evidence they would have produced it long ago -

We did.
The evidence is that the leadership, the NEC, Sadiq Khan and many others within the Party acknowledge that it is true.
Many have been suspended for it, and at least one has admitted making anti-Semitic statements born of ignorance.

Why would they all lie. It harms the Party
Have you any evidence that they are all lying to harm the Party?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

Rag,

Well who would have thought that extolling the beauty of the Dales or Robin Hoods Bay or the Connemara would one day be considered bullying and intimidating.

It would not be intimidating on a thread entitled "Places I Have Known."

Any subject used to prevent discussion of something else, with a whole pack of people demanding that the subject be changed, is intimidating, bullying behaviour.

I would welcome discussion of those places, but not for it to be used to close down an existing debate. There is plenty of room for more threads. You do not need this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

I don't think I have demanded anything on this thread.

However if you point out one of my posts where I HAVE demanded anything I will, of course, apologise.

I don't think I have been bullying or intimidating on this thread.

However if you point out one of my posts where I HAVE been bullying or intimidating I will, of course, apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

What is even stranger Raggy is the logic that says that a party that sets up an investigation into antisemitism and admits that antisemitism is a problem is the one that gets accused of being antisemitic. By that same token, as I suspect there has never been such an investigation by the BNP, then they must be less racist than the Labour party. Strange world indeed...

Still, let's get back top the sensible stuff. If you are coming to Ribblehead, email me. Chances are I will be walking on Saturday afternoon but if you are coming then I will let the others know. If you need accommodation I am sure we will find room in the bunk house but I think Christine may object to the smells and noises emanating from some bunks :-) The Station have rooms which I believe are quite good.

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:34 AM

Expect any thread discussion the Labour party will be hijacked by people flogging the same old dead horse, resulting in endless circular arguments. You're not open to persuasion, never going to agree so what's the sodding point?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

So True Stu, isn't it so much more beneficial to discuss the beauty of the Dales.

Something I would hope we could all agree on.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:47 AM

That's the first time in my life I've ever bullied or intimidated anybody with wild flowers or Jurassic fossils, I must say. Just wait 'til I lay into you with a Victoria sponge, Keith. Lock up yer daughters!

I have a feeling that I drove on that Connemara road in 1977 when the missus and I spent a month trundling round the west of Ireland in our Morris Minor. Bloody roads -three punctures in four weeks! There's a little strand somewhere round there where bits of coral wash up. I filled a matchbox with some as a souvenir. Can't tell you the trouble that caused us back at the port. A half-hour grilling by the anti-terrorist lads who took a lot of persuading that it wasn't drugs or explosives or something. The buggers turned us upside down!

Took a little lump of tufa from Gordale Beck to show my chemistry teacher at school. He was a bit of a geology freak. He was delighted that he thought he was nurturing a future geological star. Alas, a year later he was threatening to chuck me out of 'O' level chemistry for homework failure-to-do. He even threw a piece of chalk at me once. Twat. I got a grade 2, by the way.

Dunno what I was saying that was opposite to your experiences, Jim. Complementary, more like, I should say, with similar sentiments. Not saying that discussion of this should be verboten. But I do get sorely pissed off with this pair of obsessives that have us going round in circles. Anyway, I've been studiously hijacking this for 24 hours now and have yet to receive even a small bollocking. Don't mind discussing issues with sensible, fair-minded people, of course. And that's going to get a fine response, I predict.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM

Raggytash, what on earth are you playing at?
Keith is right, if you don't want to engage just leave the thread.

I don't expect Jim Dave or Steve to appreciate that, but you are above that sort of behaviour IMO and from our previous conversations.

I hade to leave the "Trumps enemies" thread after making my point, I registered my disapproval of what I considered a nasty post, if in metaphorical form... my post was almost immediately removed by a mod, but my point had been made .....end of story, I certainly would not attempt to wreck the thread because of the political views of one moderator.   A

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:53 AM

Who's not open to persuasion by the way, Stu? I've been persuaded to change my mind here on a number of topics. I tend to keep quiet about it in case some weak-minded twat calls me a snowflake or accuses me of making up shit, etc. 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

"It would be stupid Jim, but who are those people and where do they post?"
Anybody who accuses critics of israel as "Jew Haters" and "antisemites" are "these people" and they post here - you are among them
"Do you believe that Watson lies to harm his own party?"#You have what Watson is and has doem - you decide whether he is telling the truth - you have the evidence - where's yours?
"The evidence is that the leadership, the NEC, Sadiq Khan and many others within the Party acknowledge that it is true."
The evidence came yup with the fact that the accusations had no ground - you acknowledged it when you accused Corbyn of covering up the facts - without proof
How the **** can you have produced evidence when you say you don't know what king of antisemitism the Labour party is being accused of?
You even claimed that the Jewish members of Parliament refused to produce that evidence for the love of their party
Do not dig yourself into an even deeper ohole of stupidity
There is no evidence of a problem of antisemitism - none whatever.
THere are onlty accusations - accusations are not evidence, they are not proof and no civilised society would ever convict without those accusations being fully specified
Back to your padded cell Keith - you have lied and twisted enough.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

Rag, you do not need to use this thread to discuss places of interest or anything else.
You and your pack of bullies has made it very difficult for those of us trying to discuss the thread subject.

Dave,
a party that sets up an investigation into antisemitism and admits that antisemitism is a problem is the one that gets accused of being antisemitic.

Dave, all the accusations came from within Labour, and also the accusations that the Party was not addressing the problem.
What has kept this thread going is Jim and Steve denying that Labour has a problem with it. At least you seem to be acknowledging that fact.
See if you can get through to the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM

I don't really want to get involved with dog shit as we don't even have a dog, but when it appears outside our house I clean it up. It helps considerably if I think pleasant thoughts while doing it. Far better than what I would like to do to the owner.

Of course I suspect analogy is wasted on some.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:00 AM

Ake, People can discuss whatever they like. However this particular topic has been running for over 18 months on this and a previous thread with no end is sight.

The joy of walking up in the Dales or having a pint in Robin Hoods Bay or cycling the bog road between Clifden and Roundstone on the Connemara far exceeds any "joy" that has been found in the discussion of the "topic" so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM

Steve,

That's the first time in my life I've ever bullied or intimidated anybody with wild flowers or Jurassic fossils, I must say.

It is not the subject that is intimidating, it is your hijacking an existing debate.
With a whole pack of you doing it, many of you with a reputation for aggressive posting, then yes it is bullying and intimidating people who just want to continue discussing the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM

I haven't got a pack of "bullies" professor. I like the other people on this thread are not a "gang" either.

No one is being bullied or intimidated as far as I am aware, or if they are, they must indeed be sensitive little souls if they are frightened of being told of the wonders of nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM

I and the others have always agreed that there must be an antisemitic element in the Labour party just as there is in any other walk of life. I know you have probably forgotten as it was more than 2 posts ago but I have already said, and Steve and Jim have agreed, that antisemitism is a problem in the Labour party but no more so than in any other walk of life. What is more the party are working at reducing it which is a damn sight more than can be said of others.

The other day I asked you a question and you skirted it. You have already said that you do not believe the Labour party itself is antisemitic as that is not in its manifesto. Do you therefore believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else? I await your response. A simple yes or no will do.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:09 AM

That beach Steve is on the road between Clifden and Ballyconneely.

I have several bags of coral and shells that one day I will continue to make into jewellery. I must take my Dremel with me next time I go over which should be in March.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:11 AM

I agree Raggytash but surely the answer is to open a new thread on the beauties of the English countryside. I would be pleased to contribute as I am extremely fond of the wonderful views in my part of Scotland.
As I mentioned earlier the antics of some who obviously want the thread closed or derailed are an insult to the opening poster who's behaviour on forum is almost always impeccable.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:15 AM

Lovely Facebook group here. We love the Yorkshire Dales. I think you need to join to post but you can look at the pictures without doing so. I have not posted any pictures yet but I did give a link to the Mr Fox song 'The Gypsy' which is set in the Yorkshire Dales. I think Bob Pegg lives in Whitby now but I am not sure. Do you know Raggy?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:15 AM

Jim,
Anybody who accuses critics of israel as "Jew Haters" and "antisemites" are "these people" and they post here - you are among them

No I am not!
I am not aware of anyone who does that.
Will you give an example?
I am still waiting for an example of "extremist Right-Wing claims" that you reported!

Withdraw one false statement before making another Jim!

you acknowledged it when you accused Corbyn of covering up the facts

I have never done that either!!!

How the **** can you have produced evidence when you say you don't know what king of antisemitism the Labour party is being accused of?

Because I have quoted numerous reliable witnesses from within Labour, including very senior officials, who report having seen it for themselves.
A reliable witness is regarded as strong evidence in any court, and a number of such witnesses would be regarded as proof beyond reasonable doubt by any intelligent jury.
Case proved Jim.

You even claimed that the Jewish members of Parliament refused to produce that evidence for the love of their party

No. I said they expected the Party to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:22 AM

Dave,
I have already said, and Steve and Jim have agreed, that antisemitism is a problem in the Labour party but no more so than in any other walk of life.

According to many within the Party, including senior figures and people who have suffered it, Labour has a particular problem which other major parties seem not to have.

You have already said that you do not believe the Labour party itself is antisemitic as that is not in its manifesto. Do you therefore believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else?

Not just because it is not in the manifesto, silly.

As I have already explained, I do believe that Labour has a particular problem with anti-Semitism because so many senior Labour people say it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:31 AM

Not heard about Bob Pegg moving to Whitby but there is a strong rumour that Rob Van Sante has bought a house here.

For many years Whitby has resembled an Old Folkies Care Home though.

I once had the idea of several of us buying a mansion to split into apartments with a communal area. The idea was that you had to be a folkie to buy an apartment, you would agree only to sell to another folkie and that a management fee could be used to provide welfare cover for those nearing their time.

I still think there is some mileage in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:33 AM

You have still not answered the question. Do you believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else? It really is a simple question.

As to Not just because it is not in the manifesto, silly

Here is the post I made and you responded to. Your words in bold.

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.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

Now, back to the more serious business. Sounds a good idea to me Raggy. I remember Rob from years back. He appeared at Swinton Folk Club many a time and, when we were having fun with the local 'Journal' someone submitted a write up that included the phrase Rob's aunties van in the same paragraph as Rob van Sante. They didn't complain :-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:40 AM

"No I am not!"
You have accused me of antisemitism - yes you are
"I am not aware of anyone who does that."
Then you are more stupid than you appear to be - Bobad does it all the time, so does bBearded Bruce, MtheGM did it, and numerous others, regularly
The Israeli Minister of Justice said it publicly and you supported her doing so.....
Anybody who makes such a suggestion is antisemitic by definition.
Anybody who accuses Jewish politicians of a pact of silence to cover up the nature of antisemitism to protect their party is an antisemite - you did that
Your own right wing extremist statements include describing all male Muslims of being implanted to have underage sex - straight from the philosophy that sent six million Jews to their deaths.
It doesn't come any more right-wing extreme than that.
"A reliable witness is regarded as strong evidence in any court"
What an unbelievably stupid statement - even for you
A reliable witnesses's SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE may be accepted or rejected alongside all evidence but never at any time would an unsubstantiated accusation be ever be taken seriously - never
You have quoted no reliable witnesses - you have repeated unfounded accusations - substantiate them or abandon your fanatical crusade against the Labour Party.
What exactly are you accusing Labour Party members of - kidnapping Christian children to use them for blood sacrifices maybe?
WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS "SERIOUS ANTI SEMITISM" IN THE LABOUR PARTY
I've asked you this several times and you have said you don't know - are you any neared to finding out yet?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:00 AM

Now for something far more serious
Who is Bob Pegg?
Is he the comic actor who starred in the hilarious 'Sean of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz', or, 'Paul' or 'World's End'
The name rings a bell
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM

No - That is Simon Pegg. Bob Pegg and his wife Carolanne were the founder members of early 70's Folk/Rock band Mr Fox. Bob writes songs which often display his love of the Yorkshire dales. If you do YouTube the song I was particularly referring to is here

Mr Fox - The Gypsy

Long song but one of my favourites. Not sure if it will be your cup of tea, Jim, but even if it isn't it will be infinitely preferable to going round and round in circles :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:16 AM

Can't you fellers tell when you'being wound up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM

I loved Mr. Fox, and Bob's a great writer. I still occasionally do 'Fiddler's Cross'.

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

I did wonder, Jim, but played it safe just in case. I guess I am too used to dealing with wazzocks who treat everything said as an opportunity to score points ;-)

Have you heard the song already then?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:45 AM

More fascistic behaviour from the usual pack of jackals as they try to close down a thread about a subject that makes them uncomfortable - welcome to the brave new world of the regressive left.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:57 AM

"regressive left."
The regressive right sent six million Jews to their deaths
Regressive right Pinochet oversaw the rape, torture and murder of his opponents and his friend, regressive right Thatcher described his policy as her kind of democracy
Regressive right Assad continues to massacre his own people
Regressive right Trump has appointed a raving antisemite onto his team and is consorting with historical antisemite Mm LePen (still no comment from you).
Hitler was of the regressive right, as were his supporters and his stauch ally Mussolini
It's nice to know you are happy to align yorself with this particular branch of politics - please feel free to refer to us as "the regressive left" whenever it takes your fancy
I would be happy to wear your badge with pride
Enjoy your night out at the Biergarten
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 08:02 AM

Sorry forgot to reply
"Have you heard the song already then?"
Certainly have - once was enough
Pretentious crap and impossible to follow with the noise they've wrapped around it - nothing to do with folk music as I understand it
But that's an argument for elsewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 08:31 AM

Don't beat about the bush, Jim. Tell us what you really think :-) You must bear in mind of course that we are talking early 70s here. When talking pretentious crap I don't think you can hold a candle to prog. rock. I still love it though :-D And, surely, this is an ideal place for such an argument ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 08:33 AM

Regressive right / regressive left = two sides of the same coin.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 08:36 AM

"Regressive right / regressive left = two sides of the same coin."
Meaningless nonsense
You have chosen your friends, I'll stick with mine.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 08:45 AM

Sorry Dave - didn't reply - I like to seperate my friends from my foes
I have no objection to rock per-se - whatever turns you on.
It's when it is claimed to be something it is not that cause the problems, especially to a researcher - hence the "pretentious".
I grew up with and grew out of rock music - I have an extremely broad taste in music, but it doesn't include modern pop of any form - it doesn't do anything for me and it is too ephemeral to get a firm grip on - don't get me started abot the "pump up the volume" school of non-thought - musical fascism at its most extreme.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 09:05 AM

"Do you believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else? It really is a simple question."

I agree it is really a simple question and one that anyone fully prepared to look honestly and critically at what has been going in the Labour Party since the departure of Ed Miliband could answer.

As to the question itself - Do I believe that Labour Party members are more likely to be anti-Semitic than anyone else? - Simple short answer to that on examination of the "evidence" is YES.

Reasons for arriving at that conclusion as follows (None of these reasons apply to "anyone else"):

1: After Labour failed to win the 2015 General Election Ed Miliband resigned as leader and was succeeded by Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn is on record as describing Hamas and Hezbollah, both proscribed terrorist organisations as being friends.

2: With the election of Jeremy Corbyn a group called "Momentum", which is basically a rework of the "Militant Tendency" of old flooded to "join" the Labour Party to ensure that Corbyn stayed as leader.

3: Anyone who challenged Corbyn's leadership felt the weight of such "dissention" - ask Angela Eagle.

4: Corbyn supports BDS, so does "Momentum" and I would say the bulk of their membership.

5: When the OULC voted on it the Jewish Co-Chairman resigned stating that the reason for his resignation centred around Jewish members not feeling safe at meetings - Does backing BDS really require that those assembled at meetings sing "Rockets over Tel Aviv"?

6: While those here draw fine lines between Jew and Israeli regime and "Palestinian" and their "leaders" the bulk of the membership of "Momentum" do not and if the "Great Leader" says that he supports BDS as a means of bringing down Israel then "his" crew are highly likely to support any "Palestinian" position against any view held by a Jew, whether in Israel or in the UK.

7: One Inquiry into the OULC led by Baroness Royall, led to another investigating racism, misogyny, intimidation. Over 50 members, some quite high profile members too, at least four Constituency Labour Parties suspended. Labour's NEC tried it's best to muzzle Royall's report, the second Inquiry led by Chakrabarti was a classic "whitewash" it's sole purpose the second the full content of Royall's report was known (No thanks to Labour or it's NEC).

8: Baroness Royall made a number of recommendations some of them she clearly stated as requiring urgent and immediate attention to address concerns related to anti-Semitism - Apparently Labour's NEC have decided to ignore those recommendations and Hamas and Hezbollah still remain firm friends of the "Great Leader".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 09:20 AM

Good points Teribus but there is one thing missing. The question was "Do you believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else?" Your points, albeit valid, do not address the question as they do not perform the necessary comparison with others. Do we have any statistics showing what the percentage of antismites is in the Labour party compared to incidence in the rest of the population. Unless we do, how can anyone say that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else? Please note, I am talking about Labour party members in general. Not any subset of that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

Here we go again.😡

PointlesspointlesspointlesspointlesspointlessPOINTLESSpointbloodyless...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM

Don't forget Mosley Jim. He more than anyone is the inspiration for the current bunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:13 AM

"Simple short answer to that on examination of the "evidence" is YES."
Nice to see the "evidence" in inverted commas at long last
The nest step is to find what it is.
Accusations are not "evidence" - they are only allusions.
Evidence proper is a full description of what accusations consist of.
I know plenty of people who find black people intimidating or don't trust Orientals or Asians
For these accusations to become tangible they need to be described
Your suggestion of post Milliband antisemitism doesn't make sense - antisemitism is the domain of the right - it was that particular school of thought that condemned six million Jews to death
This is what Corbyn said about the report accusations - makes far more sense than believing that a philosophy based on anti-bigotry suddenly about faced, coincidently when Corbyn announced his support for BDS

"Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour party.
As the report rightly acknowledges, politicising antisemitism – or using it as a weapon in controversies between and within political parties – does the struggle against it a disservice."
Corbyn added that he believed the committee was unfair in its criticism of Chakrabarti for being insufficiently independent. "This fails to acknowledge public statements that the offer to appoint Chakrabarti to the House of Lords came after completion of her report, and was based on her extensive legal and campaigning experience," he said.

This is an official by the Jewish Socialist Group, far more authoritative that the right wing on the socialist aims of the party than career politicians like Milliband and his ilk
Jim Carroll

"Statement on "Labour's problem with antisemitism"
From the Jewish Socialists' Group
Antisemitism exists and must be exposed and fought against in the same way as other forms of racism by all who are concerned with combating racism and fascism.
Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.
Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.
Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a "problem" of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn's longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.
A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.
The accusations do not refer to antisemitic actions but usually to comments, often made on social media, long before Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas that are being expressed by:

• The Conservative Party

• Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources

• Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community

• Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party.
The Jewish Socialists' Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as "a swarm" and "a bunch of migrants". The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.
The Jewish Socialists' Group sees the current fearmongering about antisemitism in the Labour Party for what it is – a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents.
We stand against antisemitism, against racism and fascism and in support of refugees. We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:17 AM

"Don't forget Mosley Jim."
I don't David - nor do I forget that Nazi is short for national Socialist.
Totally meaningless if your aim has nothing whatever to do with Socialism.
My family weer Socialists in pre-war Liverpool and they took to the streets to stop Mosely's Blackshirts who weer being defended by the good old British bobbies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:18 AM

DtG - I believe I did answer your simple question fully, giving my reasons for what I believe - something you never do, but there again you very rarely ever say anything and obviously believe very little.

Now for anyone arguing the opposite in your view wouldn't they have to have the same statistics to argue their point? And remember nobody is, or has ever argued that the Labour Party is anti-Semitic, only that there is a problem with anti-Semitism within the Labour Party that has become increasingly more noticeable since Corbyn took over. And YES for the reasons I have given - "I do believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else?" with such a leader in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:20 AM

"I agree Raggytash but surely the answer is to open a new thread on the beauties of the English countryside."

Oi, Connemara's in IRELAND!! Racism!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:29 AM

Fair enough, Teribus. You have made it quite clear that it is your belief and cannot back it up with any facts. I can live with that and have often said the same. As long as we know it is just a belief rather than a hard fact we can work round it.

I must say I love this though. but there again you very rarely ever say anything and obviously believe very little. If I rarely say anything then why do you argue with me so often? :-)

Now, back from the ridiculous to the sublime. It is my belief that the three peaks area of Yorkshire is one of the finest scenic locations in the country. And that comes from a Lancastrian! There are prettier places and there are grander places but none that I know of have such diversity in such a compact area.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:31 AM

You have still not answered the question. Do you believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else? It really is a simple question.

It is not as simple as the questions that Steve and Jim refuse to answer.
How would I know if they are more likely to be anti-Semitic or not?
All I have to go on is the fact that Labour itself believes it has a serious problem, and who am I to argue with them?

Jim,
"No I am not!"
You have accused me of antisemitism - yes you are

I have not Jim.
I just pointed out to you that comparing Israel to the Nazis, which you do, is anti-Semitic by the most widely used definition of it.

Then you are more stupid than you appear to be - Bobad does it all the time, so does bBearded Bruce, MtheGM did it, and numerous others, regularly

Then it will be easy for you to provide an example.

The Israeli Minister of Justice said it publicly and you supported her doing so.....

I did not, and I do not accept that she did.

A reliable witnesses's SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE may be accepted or rejected alongside all evidence but never at any time would an unsubstantiated accusation be ever be taken seriously -

These are witnesses who say they have seen and heard anti-Semitism within Labour.
Such a witness statement is hard evidence for a court, and several would be proof beyond reasonable doubt for any intelligent jusry.
Case proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM

I made the severe error of doing the Three Peaks in a brand-new pair of boots that I'd bought the day before. We couldn't hang about either as we'd decided to do it on a gloomy day in late October. It took me five pints in a pub in Settle before the pain started to subside. Pendle and surrounds are one of my favourite areas. Only half an hour out of Bury up t'M66 an' all. All my dad's side come from round theer.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:38 AM

I haven't refused to answer it. I'm still thinking about it. I'll let you know. I'm a bit busy 'til November though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:44 AM

Never done the three peaks all in one go. Did do the round of Kinder some years back from Hayfield - That was a killer as well. 25 miles and up and down Kinder Scout 4 times! Called in the Sportsman pub near the start of the mass trespass when we had finished and had drunk our pints before the barman had made it back with our change! One really odd thing on that walk. We started about 7:30 am and as we made our way up the Snake path there were 2 blokes coming down dressing in 1930s hiking gear. Tweeds, shirts and ties an all. Very odd.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM

Dave,
You have made it quite clear that it is your belief and cannot back it up with any facts.

You have had lots of facts.
Numerous suspensions.
The statement last week from Baroness Royale.
Statements from numerous prominent people including Sadiq Khan, Tom Watson, the current and former leaders of Scottish labour, and the "entire NEC" which includes Corbyn himself.

Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, while other parties do not.
That is a fact, and is the full answer to your question.

Do you believe they are all lying Dave?
Do you have any evidence to justify dismissing any of them Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM

Sorry - they were not dressing. They were already dressed. If they had have been dressing that would have been even stranger.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM

I have already said...

Oh, sorry, forget it was more than 2 posts ago.

I have already said that I believe that Labour does have a problem with antisemitism. I do not believe the problem is worse than any in any other group of people. You have said specifically that the problem is not the Labour party itself and you will not say whether you believe that labour party member are more prone to antisemitism than any other group of people. The only facts that you come out with is that some senior people within the Labour party have admitted that there is a problem and that they are working towards addressing it. Do you think that is a bad thing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

Hmmmmmmmm So Momentum has FLOODED into the Labour party has it.

At the last count Momentum had 20,000 members.

The Labour Party 500,000.

I make that 4%, IF all 20,000 members FLOODED into Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:07 AM

The Connemara is exceptionally beautiful and extremely varied. I would recommend it to anyone............. well nearly everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:12 AM

Here is some more food for thought for you. Almost half of Britons hold antisemitic view, poll suggests .

Amongst lots of interesting facts and figures there are some gems. Including It also found that one in four (25%) Britons believed that Jews chase money more than other British people, a figure which rose to 39% of those participants who identified themselves as Ukip voters.

Now, I am sure people can so the sums but just how many people were suspended over allegations of antisemitism? Was it 50? Tell you what, I'll be kind and double that. No, hang on, Ill multiply by 10 and make it nice round 500. There are, what, 500,000 current members. 500 as a percentage of 500,000 anyone? Is it 39% like UKIP? Or 25% like the general public? Sorry, you will have to help me out here...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:17 AM

Almost half of Britons hold antisemitic view, poll suggests

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

"You have had lots of facts."
None - and indicative of that fact is that once again you refuse to produce them here
You said the Jewish victims of the antisemitism refused to give dtails so how can we possinly have had them
Suspensions are inevitable when accusations are made - where are your facts
Why do yo persist in this Keith - haven't you humiliated yourself enough with your dishonesty?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM

You rarely say anything, but you do ask a lot of questions, I answer them.

Oh and by the way you did ask what I BELIEVED. I detailed the facts that support that belief.

Corbyn Leader? Fact
Corbyn regards Hamas and Hezbollah as friends and is on record as stating such. Fact
Corbyn supports BDS Fact
Labour's NEC Commissioned an Inquiry into anti-Semitism in OULC. Fact
Baroness Royall stated that although not "institutionalised" anti-Semitism within the OULC did need to be addressed urgently and immediately. Fact
Royall's Inquiry prompted Labour to commission a far wider reaching Inquiry under Shami Chakrabarti. Fact
Labour's NEC fail to implement Baroness Royall's recommendations. Fact

Care to dispute any of those Facts Gnome? They've certainly unsettled and worried a number of Labour Party Members particularly Jewish members - another inconvenient Fact for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:31 AM

It is a worry and one that we should be ashamed of, bobad. Particularly considering that this survey has rates of antisemitism going down in other countries. There are factors like the number of Muslim residents who, whether we like it or not, are more likely to be antisemitic. The reasons for that are a different argument.

What it does show though is that while the other parties and the country in general do not seem to be acknowledging the issue, the Labour party is already addressing it. So, once again, we come to the point I keep trying to make. The Labour party membership are no more antisemitic than anyone else. Considerably less so if the figures add up. I know it is futile trying to get that point across though so we may as well stick to more pleasant topics like the Yorkshire dales, holidays and botany.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM

I did ask what you believe, Teribus and, to your credit, you gave a good measured answer. It is still just a belief though and does not measure up to the facts produced in the surveys I have linked.

No, I do not dispute any of your facts and there is no real need to embolden the word. None of them indicate that the Labour party have a bigger issue than anyone else though do they. In fact, they show that the Labour party are already addressing the issue while everyone else seems to have difficulty even acknowledging that antisemitism is a problem in general.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:07 PM

Er, look a little more closely, Dave. Corbyn, in front of a Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed regret for calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends, regretted his choice of words and giving the explanation that he was trying to be inclusive at the time, encouraging reconciliation. Issuing the "fact" Teribus-style is to intend to mislead by omission. If you leave it at the point where Corbyn called them friends and omitted the stuff I've just given you, you may be misled into thinking that that is still his opinion. Which it isn't. I think it's rather important, and far more honest, to give the full story. I know how inconvenient that can be when it flies in the face of a demonising agenda. Maybe I'll get back to the other stuff later. We had the most gorgeous rainbow here half an hour ago. Chicken and chips for tea!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:10 PM

Dave,
. I do not believe the problem is worse than any in any other group of people.

Why do you believe that?
No other party has had to deal with that issue. No other party has had all those complaints from within. You are in denial Dave.

senior people within the Labour party have admitted that there is a problem and that they are working towards addressing it. Do you think that is a bad thing?

No, but those people also say that Labour is not working towards addressing it. That is a bad thing.

We heard it from Labour Peer Baroness Royale just days ago, and she was appointed by Corbyn to lead an enquiry into it and produce a report which she says has been ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:13 PM

"I do not dispute any of your facts and there is no real need to embolden the word. None of them indicate that the Labour party have a bigger issue than anyone else though do they" - DtG

"None of them indicate that the Labour party have a bigger issue than anyone else" - You mean ignoring the FACT that all the facts you accept are ALL specific to the LABOUR PARTY.

Going back to your YouGov Survey article in the Guardian - what was the percentage given of Jews questioned who no longer felt safe in the UK? Jewish Students do not feel safe attending University Labour Club debates and meetings - WHY? Because they are generally open and Labour Youth and Students vote to support BDS as does the Party Leader. Intimidation, racism and misogyny at Constituency Labour Parties. And they all seem to be at ones where dissent is shown to the Leader - Coincidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:16 PM

Why do you believe that?

Because nearly half of people in the UK display antisemitic leanings and it is nowhere near that in the Labour party. It is no so much that no other party has had to deal with it. It is that no other party has even looked yet. Do keep up Keith.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:19 PM

Jim,
You said the Jewish victims of the antisemitism refused to give dtails so how can we possinly have had them

They gave details to the party for them to deal with it.

We know for a fact that Labour has a serious problem because of statements from numerous prominent people including Sadiq Khan, Tom Watson, the current and former leaders of Scottish Labour, and the "entire NEC" which includes Corbyn himself.

Why do yo persist in this Keith

Only because you persist in denying it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM

In May I'm taking a party of 10 on a week long tour of the Dingle peninsula. Another beautiful area.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 12:36 PM

"I detailed the facts that support that belief."
ow you are doin a Keith - if Labour is guilty of the accusations made against it what form does that antisemitism take and why is nobody prepared to describe it?

Corbyn Leader? Fact
Smokescrewen
Corbyn regards Hamas and Hezbollah as friends and is on record as stating such. Fact
No, but even if it was, that does NO mean there is a problem of antisemitism within the Labour Party
Corbyn said he regarded Hezbolah "friends" (around the time Britain was describing Assad as an ally and was still propping up the Qaddafi regime with arms and political support)
He has since withdrawn that description, saying he regretted making itit   
Corbyn supports BDS Fact
Good on him - BDS is supported by all religius denominaqtions and shades of political thought - Jews and no Jews alike - throughout the world
Labour's NEC Commissioned an Inquiry into anti-Semitism in OULC. Fact
Baroness Royall stated that although not "institutionalised" anti-Semitism within the OULC did need to be addressed urgently and immediately. Fact
And it was - it is not an indication that there was a majort problem or in anyway more of a phenomenon in the Laboutr Party - just that what there was needed to be dealt with.
Last March, the Tory Party was accused of having a problem with islamophobia - as a response, they appointed a racist as foreign secretary.
Royall's Inquiry prompted Labour to commission a far wider reaching Inquiry under Shami Chakrabarti. Fact
See above
Labour's NEC fail to implement Baroness Royall's recommendations. Fact
The enquiries that were hald found there to be no significant problem - fact
All smoke and mirrors - totally meaningless.
We are still waiting for the British Muslim's demand for an enquiry to be responded to - that we should all live that long!!!
There will be no proven problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party until it is described and quantified - until such time, it will remain merely unsubstantiated accusations.
Jim Carroll

A Jewish view of Labour antisemitism
AS A JEWISH LABOUR MEMBER, I'M SICK OF ANTI-SEMITISM BEING USED AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST JEREMY CORBYN
Michael Segalov
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who wear swastikas as badges of honour. Where was your concern for my community then?
It's become an all too regular occurrence, waking up to headlines reporting that anti-Semitism in the Labour party is now an endemic problem, and that bad feeling against Jewish people in the party is on an upward trajectory.
As a Jewish Labour Party member, they are stories that should have me alarmed. I know from experience just how dangerous anti-Semitism can really be: vast swathes of my ancestors were lost to the murderous hands of the Nazis, and observant Jewish friends of mine have been harassed and attacked on British streets. I've read the slurs, faced the trolls, had neo-Nazis shout abuse in my face.
And yet it's not just anger against bigots that hits as I scan story after story, but frustration towards those trying to use an all too real threat facing my community for their own political gain. Since Corbyn's election as Labour leader, unsupportive MPs, campaigning groups and journalists have been desperate to paint him and the movement who support him as anti-Semitic fanatics, despite knowing it's really not the case.
I could tell you about my own experiences, how I've never experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism inside the party – but that's just what I've seen, non-Jewish defenders of my religion will claim. My experiences, and those of countless other Corbyn-supporting Jewish members who I've spoken to, aren't reflective of what's really going on, apparently.
Just a few months ago, I found myself sat in the Channel 4 News studio, tasked with discussing anti-Semitism under Corbyn. Sat opposite me was John Woodcock MP, desperate to tell me it's the "hard-left" who are "associated [with] Soviet Russia" with anti-Semitic views infiltrating the party who were responsible for stirring up hatred.
Now, we only need look at the most high-profile of cases to see that anti-Semitism is by no means a product of Corbyn's supporters. Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, was rightly suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Facebook, not a Corbynite but a backer of Yvette Cooper in the last leadership election. Ken Livingstone, similarly sanctioned for his remarks about Hitler, has been a party grandee for decades. An insurgent? I think not.
Woodcock pointed me towards "a rise in anti-Semitic incidents" within the party, without having a single statistic or figure to back it up. It's an answer I hear time and time again, and for those of us – Jewish or otherwise – committed to fighting anti-Semitism, enough is enough.
It's tiring and it's frustrating, but moreover it's frankly dangerous.
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies, and the counter-demonstrations that take place alongside. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who profess hatred for Jews and our religion, who wear swastikas as badges of honour, who'll salute like a Nazi in front of your face. Where was your concern for my community then?
It's not just the distinct absence of those MPs in Labour who now claim to be at the forefront of the fight against anti-Jewish prejudice that's striking, but the presence of those they now claim to be British Jewry's biggest threat.
It's the left, and Corbyn's supporters, who've put their bodies on the line time and time again to protect us from these racist organisations.
That's why these cries of anti-Semitism make a mockery of a real and present danger. Corbyn's commitment to fighting discrimination and prejudice has been well documented for decades. His supporters are those who've stood alongside him. Accusing these people now of peddling prejudice is nothing but political point-scoring at its worst. It undermines real hatred, and waters down the impact of calling out anti-Semitism when it rears its ugly head.
I'm not saying Labour members haven't experienced anti-Semitism inside the Labour Party, and of course, a progressive movement like Labour should hold itself to higher standards than other organisations. Those few who blindly label all incidents of anti-Semitism as anti-Corbyn slander and restrictions on critiquing Israel need to listen to the voices of victims and let conversations about Judaism and Israel be led by Jewish members: we are here and we know how to speak,
This isn't to say I don't value the concern, but I want to make a few things perfectly clear. Anti-Semitism is not a problem particular to Labour; using the words "Judaism" and "Israel" interchangeably is just as (if not more) common on the right as on the left.
Oppression, discrimination and Jewish identity are complex; the relationship between our religion and the state of Israel is constantly debated; disagreements will happen inside our community. Let us lead these discussions. Don't quickly take sides simply to advance your faction, angle or personal interests.
And if you're truly concerned about fighting racism and anti-Semitism, I look forward to seeing you stand alongside us in meetings and on the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM

"They gave details to the party for them to deal with it."
You've given this excuse before Keith and followed it with your antisemitic suggestion that they did not describe that antisemitism publicly because of their love of the party
It is antisemitic to suggest that Jewish people would put the interests of a political organisation before that of their people
You said you had produced plenty of facts - you lied
Now you are back to your 'Jewish pact of silence' claim - make up your mind - which story are you going to stick with?.
Dig away - you'll get to Australia eventually
You don't know Labour has a serious problem - we only know Labour has treated the accusations seriously and held enquiries - a million miles from what is happening on the opposite bench in Parliament.
Put up your examples and nobody will be able to deny them - if they are substantiated.
You dishonest claimed you had already put them up - stop lying and put them up - that's what you would have to do in a court
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM

I loved the Dingle peninsula when we were there. Only spent a shot time there but even the journey was magical. I am sure you will be able to name the places I forgot so I will not look them up. We were staying in Finuge, hometown of Sean McCarthy, just outside Listowel. I cannot recal the full journey but I know we stopped briefly in Tralee before crossing a high mountain pass to drop down to Dingle itself. The view across the bay to Blasket (?) was stunning. After a stop in Dingle we headed off and followed a more roundabout route to get back.

They had a Sean McCarthy festival while we were in Finuge and I got to meet his widow! Part of the festivities were in the village hall which was dry but had a pub across the road. The number of people nipping out for 5 or 10 minutes at a time was quite phenomenal :-) There were also a lot of Irish rebel songs and stories, none of which I felt were threatening at all but one evening when I was in a bar in Listowel the local brancj of the Chelsea fan club came in after losing to Man United. When one asked where I was from I said Bolton :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 01:40 PM

Being a United supporter would not have mattered Dave, I drink in a pub over there that is firmly Arsenal (for some reason)never had a problem.

I spent a great afternoon in Bantry a few years back watching Ireland V England at Rugby Union, not once did I feel even slightly intimidated.

I will be watching the Ireland V England game over there again this year, not a problem.

A bit strange then that some people find any talk of holidays and botany on this site intimidating really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM

Do you know the story of Mac City's manager, Steve Coppell walking down the street carrying a television set?
He bumped into his mate, who asked him, " What's with the teleevision set"
He replied, " I got it for the team"
"That was a good swap", came the reply
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 02:49 PM

if Labour is guilty of the accusations made against it what form does that antisemitism take and why is nobody prepared to describe it?

Why do we need to? I do not even care, but there is no doubt that Labour has a serious problem because all those people say so.
Or do you believe they all lie against their Party like you believe the deputy Leader does?

You've given this excuse before Keith and followed it with your antisemitic suggestion that they did not describe that antisemitism publicly because of their love of the party

I am sure that they all love their Party.
When they experience anti-Semitism within that Party, or any other kind of discrimination or intolerance, the standard thing to do is report it to the Party and let them deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 02:56 PM

"Why do we need to? "
You've just said you have - are you admitted to having lied?
You chatge someone with something, you need to specify exactly what you are charging them with
What an incredibly stupid question - even for you
"but there is no doubt that Labour has a serious problem because all those people say so."
No they don't - you made that up as well
You are still anti semitically accusing the Jews of a pact of silence
You are a classic antisemite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 03:15 PM

In 1977 we spent two lovely weeks staying at Nellie O'Neill's B&B at Cross Cloghane. We got to know her sister too, who ran Murphy's pub four miles down the road at Brandon. Nellie's lovely granddaughter Ellen served us breakfast. If we ate everything we got even more next morning. It even got to the pitch where we were getting chips on top of everything else! Saved on lunch...

That would be Conor Pass, Dave. It was a bit hairy on the day we first drove over it but I found the rare St Patrick's Cabbage up there. Not a cabbage at all, it's a saxifrage similar to the garden one called London Pride. We climbed Brandon Peak whilst there but it was a bit murky. 1977 wasn't the best summer for weather!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 03:55 PM

What did St Patrick say as he drove the snakes out of Ireland?

"Are you alright back there lads?"

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM

Anybody who thinks they can accuse somebody of something without specifying what is ******* insane
End of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:00 PM

For all his faults, at least Jim sticks to the subject and the rules of the forum......the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves.


If you want to chatter to one another do it on a thread set up for the purpose......what you are doing is forum abuse and moderation should take note.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 05:18 PM

What rules?

Careful, Jim. You've made a new friend...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:14 PM

With friends like that......

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 06:57 PM

......who needs enemas.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:28 PM

"Careful, Jim. You've made a new friend."
Go wash your mouth out
If you have anything to add to the hang-em-high non-response of these weirdos, feel free - they really are getting boring.
Meanwhile, back at the serious business:
A young black lad in Manchester was kicking a ball up against a wall when a scout for Man City spotted him.
He watched for ten minutes as the lad's skill became apparent - kicking the ball up over his head, back-heeling it, passing from heel to knee and back without hesitation.... absolutely superb.
After the display, the scout approached the lad and said, "how would you like to test for City?"
"**** off", said the lad - it's hard enough being black in this part of the world".
Or
A sweet little girl lived with her single-parent mother next to a site where they were building new houses.
Every morning she would go out and watch the men working through the wire around the site, till one day one of the men spotted her and asked her if she would like to sit down and watch.
They brought her on to the site, found her an old chair to sit on and the next day they had a whip-round and presented her with a little pink boiler-suit, a pink hard-hat and a little pink lunch-box with neatly cut cheese sandwiches and a bottle of pink lemonade inside.
At the end of the week they handed her a little pink envelope with her wages in it.
She ran home to her mother and handed her the money, and her mother said, "that's very nice dear; are you working next week?"
"It depends whether those ****** at the builders merchants deliver the blocks in time", was the reply.
G'night all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:33 PM

Nora Murphy's Bar at Brandon is simply the most exquisite bar I have ever had the good fortune to drink in.

Mary Murphy was the forth generation of the family to run the bar, she was an absolute delight. So kind, so generous, a wonderful hostess. I cannot sing her praises highly enough.

The location of the bar is beautiful, wonderfully beautiful.

As one of our party said as he stood in the doorway, gazing at the amazing vista "take me God I'm ready"

Nothing in all in my 22 intervening years of drinking has come anywhere close.

Her nephew now runs the bar, I suspect it will not have changed one iota.

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

Sorry, Jim. He's no joke for sure. Amazing how someone like him who crows about "remoaners" as much as he does moans like a banshee when we are only doing such innocent things as telling gags, discussing the old days, reminiscing about our golden pasts, chatting about the nice places we know and cataloguing wild flowers. Disappointing coming from a man who does equally innocent things such as praising bigots like Trump and Farage, militating against equality and talking about horrendous leftie women. Remind me never to become a socialist just like him, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Feb 17 - 07:52 PM

Think we may have mentioned that bar before, Raggytash. We went there most nights during that two weeks. It was always packed out and none of the old boys bothered pouring their Guinness into glasses, shades of trendy modern types with their bottles of horse-piss lager. As the evening went on all the space under the wooden benches became taken up with dead men. One night we were treated to a girl of about ten playing the most devastatingly good tin whistle I've ever heard. Mrs Steve and I got involved in a bit of cloak and dagger, spiriting a huge salmon the provenance of which we didn't care to enquire about, down to the pub. Our reward was a hunk of the finest salmon I've ever eaten. Not from a fish farm, that one! The name Nora rings a bell. It was 1977 - does that fit time-wise? Anyway, Nellie was her sister, the lady who looked after us for a fortnight. Happy days!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 04:13 AM

Jim,
"but there is no doubt that Labour has a serious problem because all those people say so."
No they don't - you made that up as well

I can put all the quotes up again Jim, but I am sure everyone else remembers them.

You are still anti semitically accusing the Jews of a pact of silence

Ha ha! So silent that no-one knows about Labour's anti-Semitism! Ha ha!


Anybody who thinks they can accuse somebody of something without specifying what is ******* insane

When all those people say that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism, anybody who thinks they are all lying to damage their own Party is ******* insane!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 05:10 AM

Put up the evidence of the accusations Keith - that'll do nicely
Until you do, you have no case
You have now reached the satage of multiple lying
you put up evidence - there is no evidence because the Jews prefer to support their party rather than their people - now back to your reinvention of what people are supposed to have said.
You really are an obsessive right wing hate monger
Know any good jokes?
If not, you really have well and truly shat in your own nest here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM

there is no evidence because the Jews prefer to support their party rather than their people

No Jim. They experienced anti-Semitism and reported it to the Party to deal with.
All those women MPs who complained about Labour misogyny did the same, as did the gay MP who complained of homophobia.

Do you also claim that gays and feminists " prefer to support their party rather than their people ?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:05 AM

It's a much nicer atmosphere in the Yorkshire Dales, Jim. Or Whitby. Or Cornwall. Or Ireland or course :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

What Sadiq Khan said.
Do you think he is lying to damage his own Party and help the Government Of Israel Jim?
Do you like being laughed at?


Labour's leadership does not understand anti-Semitism, the party's London mayoral candidate has said as he criticised Jeremy Corbyn for not stopping "unacceptable" racism against Jews from some members.  
Sadiq Khan said recent high-profile incidents of anti-Semitism in Labour should be a "badge of shame" for the party and called for members of the ruling body to be retrained in what constitutes discrimination.
The Tooting MP also directly challenged his leader to take a "tougher stance" on the issue, saying he was "embarrassed" by the party's record and demanding it was time not just to "talk the talk" but "walk the walk"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:13 AM

What the NEC said,
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party and is contrary to everything we stand for."

"at anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue "

That is the leadership, including Corbyn Jim.
Obviously you think you know much more than they do!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM

He's not the mayoral candidate. He's the mayor. And he's wrong.

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

And he's wrong.

You really believe you know more about Labour's problem than Khan does!

You must like being laughed at too Steve.
Ha ha ha.
There you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM

Instead of offering peoples opinions professor, provide some evidence.

Anyone can make a claim about anything, but to substantiate that claim evidence is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:25 AM

Steve, I first came across the bar in 1995. Mary Murphy was the landlady then. I believe she is the daughter of Nora, after whom the bar in still named.

We had a tremendous day there that year and when I got back to the UK I dropped her a line to say Thank-You. That was at Easter. That Christmas, and every Christmas since, I have had a card from her. We've visited on numerous occasions in the intervening years and always enjoyed wonderful hospitality and it must be the best location of any bar I have ever been in.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM

I am not posting random opinions Rag.
These are the statements of well placed, high ranking Labour officials on their own experience of Labour anti-Semitism.

Reliable witnesses. Their statements would be considered hard evidence in any court, and put together any intelligent jury would accept them as proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you imagine yourself better informed than Sadiq Khan and Labour's National Executive Committee Rag?
Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:49 AM

You could cite the Queen of Sheba, without evidence it is meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:50 AM

I still do not know if it is any worse in the Labour party than elsewhere. No one can seem to or is willing to put a figure on this 'serious problem'. To quote from the survey I linked before

It also found that one in four (25%) Britons believed that Jews chase money more than other British people, a figure which rose to 39% of those participants who identified themselves as Ukip voters.

What is the percentage of Labour voters in this scenario. Is worse than 39% or worse than 25%? Unless the people making the claim that the antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than elsewhere then their case is not proven.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 10:55 AM

Rag, the Queen of Sheba is not a high ranking Labour insider.
Are you claimimg that Khan, the NEC and all the others are wrong, as Steve does, or lying as Jim does?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

No professor, I am not saying they are wrong. I do not have the information to do that.

I am saying they have only offered opinion.

The reasons for their opinions could vary from a dislike for Corbyn to their having a bit on the side with May.

I do not know .......... and more to the point neither do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

For Christ's sake Keith - when will you get it into your head that you will never convict anybody of anything unless you specify what you are accusing them of
Doesn't it occur to you as strange that you, nor anybody else is totally incapable of describing the antisemitism that is supposed to be taking place or give a figure to it?
Absolute insanity, by anybody's reckoning.
We really have been here over and over again
Sadiq Khan made his remards at the time of the mayoral election
He believed Corbyn to be a barrier to his winning and he is an opponent of his policy - of course he is goint to use an tactic to win votes at such a time
He does not specify either the type of antisemitism he is referring to nor does he give numbers - he simply refers to its existence - NOBODY ARGUES THAT THERE ARE NO ANTISEMITES IN THE LABOUR PARTY _ OF COURSE THERE ***** ARE
"Badge of shame is a bit of a soundbite with Khan - he used the term to condemn the that the fact that London only took 34 refugees is "London's Badge of Shame", but I very much doubt if he is your hero on that one, knowing your attitude to Muslims.
You have lied, you have twisted what people have said, you have repeated yourself over and over again BUT UNTIL YOU PUT A FACE AND A NUMBER TO THE ANTISEMITISM YOU ARE OBSESSIVELY ACCUSING LABOUR OF HAVING YOU HAVE NO CASE - NOT A SHRED OF ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 11:28 AM

"or lying as Jim does?"
Don't you dare take what I am saying out of context again, you despicably dishonest wretch
You have exactly what I say about politicians and the reasons they do what they do
I am saying that you are deliberately taking what these people say and taking it out of context - you have always adopted the same tactic when you are in a corner - it has become part of your standard dishonesty
Now ******* stop it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 01:43 PM

Rag,
I am saying they have only offered opinion.

No. They are reporting their experiences, not offering opinions.

Jim,
We really have been here over and over again

I know. Why did you ask for it all over again?

you will never convict anybody of anything unless you specify what you are accusing them of

I am not convicting anyone of anything.
I am just reporting that Labour has a problem with anti-Semistism according to Labour itself.

If "The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse" then you make yourself ridiculous by denying there were any.

Note Rag, they are stating facts not offering opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 01:47 PM

Jim,
You have exactly what I say about politicians and the reasons they do what they do

No we have not.
You ducked the question and refused to answer.

I will ask you again.
When they report anti-Semitism in their Party are they lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:09 PM

No one has ever argued that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. Just that it is no worse than anywhere else and a damn sight less than in some parties. Saying that people are denying there is any at all is classic straw man.

Jim, Raggy, Steve. Have you ever denied that there is any antisemitism? I am pretty sure you have not and I certainly haven't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:27 PM

"You ducked the question and refused to answer."
I've answered it four times - stop telling lies
"When they report anti-Semitism in their Party are they lying?"
Some are - as I have said, the ones who are attempting to remove Corbyn by any method.
I have no doubt that some have lied - it has been proved beyond a doubt that foremost among those who have made claims are connected directly with Israel and have expressed their opposition to B.D.S.
Whether they are lying or whether they accept the Israeli line that opposition to Israeli policy is immaterial really - both end up in the same place - a distortion of the term "antisemitic".
Israel is mentioned 42 times in Parliamentary report on antisemitism - criticism of Israel is not antisemitic - on the contrary, to suggest it is is antisemitic by definition.   
"I know. Why did you ask for it all over again?"
I didn't ask you to rais Saiq Khan again, which was what I was referring to - I covered that particular situation months ago yet you are still raising it as if it's a new piece of evidence.
You have accused the Jewish members of Parliament of dishonesty - you said they refused to describe the antisemitism because they put the interests of the party first - how ******* dishonest if that?
Personally, I believe that is just a sign of your own antisemitism.
I have no doubt whatever that some members of the Labour Party accept the Israeli line that criticism of Israel is antisemitic - not dishonest, just agenda driven politicking.
This argument of your is pointless Keith.
You have been given acess to a long article by a large member of ordinary Jewish Labour Party Members saying that there is no problem of antisemitism and that the whole thing has been conjured up by supporters of the Israeli regime and right wing opponents of Corbyn ARE THEY ALL LYING?
You have been given statements by several life-long Jewish activists in the Labour Party saying exactly the same thing ARE THEY LYING?
The suggestion that the propaganda campaign which is spending billions attempting to offset B.D.S. manufactured the charges against Labour, first appeared publicly in a long article carried by Haaretz WERE THEY LYING?
Jewish academics and activists throughout the world have made exactly the same suggestion ARE THEY ALL LYING?
There is once certain way to find out who is lying and who is telling the truth QUALIFY AND QUANTIFY YOUR CLAIM OF A PROBLEM AND YOU HAVE MADE YOUR CASE - UNTIL YOU DO, YOU ARE MAKING AN IDIOT OF YOURSELF - BRITISH LAW CLEARLY STATES THAT A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL THEY ARE PROVED GUILTY - ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT PROOF
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:31 PM

Large number of ordinary Jewish Labour Party Members - "large member" doesn't bear thinking about!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

Al Jazeera uncovers the "Israeli" plot to undermine the Labour party with accusations of anti-Semitism:

The Lobby

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM

There's that midge again, gol-dang it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:44 PM

Arabs always lie don't they Bobad?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 03:59 PM

No one has ever argued that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party.

No Dave but they have denied that it is a serious problem even though all those senior people say it is.

Jim has just told us that he believes some are actually lying about it.
He has suggested they lie to damage their own Party, and they do it for the Government of Israel!

I would value your opinion of those views Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 04:11 PM

There is a considerable body of opinion on this forum that believe that you are a complete pain in the arse professor.

Using your own logic they must be correct.

I presume I am correct to come to that conclusion ...........

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 04:16 PM

Incidentally that body of opinion also includes most of the Moderators.

Now I have no evidence of this, but as I have stated that as my opinion I trust you will accept it as fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 04:51 PM

We should turn this on it's head. Yes, we know that antisemitism is a serious problem. According to the survey I linked nearly half the people of this country hold some antisemitic sentiments. 25% of the people asked thought that Jews chase money more than other people. The survey includes people from all walks of life and political persuasions. Amongst UKIP members the figure is 39%. So what are the Conservatives doing about it when there must be as many of their members that are antisemitic? Nothing. What are the LibDems doing? Nothing. What is UKIP and that nice Mr Farage doing when it is known that their members are more antisemitic than most? Nothing.

In fact, the only party with the integrity to admit that it is a problem and do something about it is Labour. Yet you are telling us this is a bad thing. Like I have said before. Different morality. Different language. Different planer.

Day trip to Bangor anyone?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 04:54 PM

Raggy, you forgot something. You know there is a serious problem but you are not willing to provide any examples of that serious problem nor will you tell us what it actually is. But you have said it is a serious problem and I have agreed, as have many other people who we will not name. So it must be true

;D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 05:55 PM

As of July 2016:

Labour had 515,000 members, if your percentages are representative that means that 128,750 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

The SNP had 120,000 members,if your percentages are representative that means that 30,000 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

The Liberal Democrats had 76,000, if your percentages are representative that means that 19,000 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

The Green Party (England and Wales) had 55,500, if your percentages are representative that means that 13,875 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

UKIP had 39,000 members of whom 39% hold some form of view that could be termed anti-Semitic which would produce a number of 15,210.

Plaid Cymru had 8,300, if your percentages are representative that means that 2,075 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

As of December 2013 (latest published figure) the Conservative Party had 149,800 members. If your percentages are representative that means that 37,450 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

Which UK Political Party has the largest number of people who hold some sort of view that would be considered anti-Semitic?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 06:24 PM

It is therefore remarkable that there are so few alledged antisemitics within the Labour Party, the organisation should, according to your "theory" be riddled with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 06:30 PM

Well Keith, let me tell you why Sadiq Khan is wrong. Are you listening? Sadiq Khan, like most of the disaffected Labour two-time loser Blairite/Brownite right, is not an honest man. That's why he is wrong. His mission, echoed by your silly campaign here (that approximately three people here are taking any notice of because all the rest are totally pissed off with your tedious right-wing bigotry), is intent on perpetuating the anti-Corbyn split in my party. The bogus antisemitism debacle is the main grist to his mill. Of course, as you're a man of the opportunist hard right, I can't expect you to understand that. I haven't finished with you yet, but I'm about to watch a Spooks repeat on the Drama channel so you can bugger off for a little while.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 06:39 PM

Arabs always lie don't they Bobad?

You're the one who would know that, lying is your specialty after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 07:46 PM

Well Raggy, I am not the person responsible for the Poll that states that 25% of the people in the UK are anti-Semitic - DtG introduced the Poll which asked roughly 3,400 people four questions which were loaded.

DtG originally asked the question:

"Do you believe that Labour party members are more likely to be antisemitic than anyone else?"

To support the view that the UK harbours a large number of anti-semites he introduced the YouGov Poll to illustrate that anti-semitism is the same in all parties - but that only holds good if all parties were equal, which of course they are not.

Taking the Poll figures at face value I am now even more convinced that any Labour Party Member I meet is more likely to be anti-Semitic because there's more of them that I would meet on a day to day basis than I would compared to any other Political Party.

Elsewhere, oh dear, we find that everybody is out of step except our Steve. As to Corbyn as "Leader", and I hope you are listening Shaw. Jeremy Corbyn has been a total disaster for Labour as a electable political force, under his leadership they provide no opposition in Parliament and they are completely out of touch with their traditional voter base.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 07:56 PM

"Jim has just told us that he believes some are actually lying about it."
And you have told us that the Labiour party Jewish organisations are lying about it, and Haaretz and all the other Jews who say it is part of the Israeli propaganda campaign against BDS
Who are we to believe - the career politicians who wont tell us what the antisemitism is or the ordinary Jewish members
Whoever tells us what we want to believe, I suppose
Can you describe the antisemitism that is taking place and the numvbers concerned Keith
No - of course you can't - the Jewish members have entered into a pact of silence to hide it.
Game over I think Keith
Do you know how those antisemitic views are expressed Teribus -
No - course you don't - it's about as substantiated as your "Bin Laden wasn't a businessman" claims
I do like your keeping your head down while your mate takes all the flak, then coming back when he's reall in the shit - really comradely
LABOUR IS GUILTY OF NOTHING UNTIL SOMEONE SUBTANTIATES THEIR ACCUSATIONS WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GUILTY OF
Not outside of Donald Trump's idea of democracy anyway
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 08:56 PM

Well, Spooks was superb. Poor Tom has been sidelined tonight in favour of the charmless Adam. Damn.

Now, Keith. Here's the lowdown on antisemitism. Are you listening? Good!

1. Antisemitism is the expressed hatred of or threats towards Jews because they are Jews.

2. Antisemitism has nothing to do with criticism of the policies or activities of the Israeli regime. That includes activities such as ethnic cleansing in the Negev or illegal settlement building in the occupied West Bank, or the blatant discrimination against non-Jews, especially Arabs, in Israel, which I've catalogued on several previous occasions.

3. Antisemitism has nothing to do with BDS, which is an international campaign to put pressure on the right-wing ISRAELI REGIME to try to get it to stop discriminating against non-Jews in Israel, the occupied territories and Gaza.   

4. Antisemitism is a very unfortunate natural phenomenon. It is not subject to unnatural, false definitions favoured by blinkered pro-Israel factions. It's very simple. You are prejudiced against Jewish people purely because they are Jews. Nothing else. Nothing to do with countries or their policies.

5. Antisemitism has nothing to do with disagreeing that the state of Israel should have been founded. It is, however, antisemitic to declare that Israel should be wiped off the map, because, if you do, are calling for the destruction of or enforced mass emigration of millions of innocent Jewish people with family roots in Israel.

6. It is not antisemitic to say that you are anti-Zionist. Zionism is a highly political movement. It is not antisemitic to oppose the notion that Jews are entitled to a separate homeland. I hate to say it, and I'm very mindful of the Holocaust, but there is nothing particularly special about 21st century Jews that puts them on a different footing to 21st century anybody else. That isn't to say that Jews should not be treated with respect and with due regard for their distinct ethnicity, but that applies equally to many other groups as well.

7. There is endemic racism in the Catholic Church (apart from Wagner, quite possibly the most important peddler of antisemism in the last 150 years), the Church of England and the Tory party. Not to speak of overtly racist parties such as UKIP. Shockingly, there may be a small amount even in the Labour Party, but, if so, it is confined to a few people who may need a word in their shell-like to put them on the right path. There is a large faction within Labour who want to see Corbyn go. They have discovered that their best weapon is the trumped-up charge of. antisemitism in their ranks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 09:23 PM

" I am now even more convinced that any Labour Party Member I meet is more likely to be anti-Semitic because there's more of them that I would meet on a day to day basis than I would compared to any other Political Party."

Do read this again. It's quite likely the most ridiculous sentence ever typed on this forum. No, really, go on. Dwell on it. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 02:40 AM

Teribus - Just one word. Percentages. No point in explaining further if you don't understand it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:01 AM

...and Labour are still the only party doing anything about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:30 AM

Steve,
Of course, as you're a man of the opportunist hard right,

That is just a lying smear Steve.
I am an ex-Labour voter hoping to be able to vote for them again sometime.

The picture you paint of a Party of liars, happy to damage or even to destroy the Party over internal differences of view is of a Party totally unfit for office, even that of Opposition.

Dave, the survey quoted in the Guardian was restricted only to four old anti-Semitic clichés, none of which has any bearing on the complaints coming out of Labour, but not coming out of any other Party.
It is irrelevant to this discussion.

Jim,
And you have told us that the Labiour party Jewish organisations are lying about it,

Of course I never have or would.
Instead of making up lies about what I say, give the actual quotes like I do.
That would be difficult for you though, because you can only lie about me.

Can you describe the antisemitism that is taking place and the numvbers concerned Keith

Only those that have become public. I am only concerned that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism according to the leadership and numerous prominent members. Your denials against all that are laughable!

No - of course you can't - the Jewish members have entered into a pact of silence to hide it.

That is a nasty and anti-Semitic lie Jim.

LABOUR IS GUILTY OF NOTHING UNTIL .....

Err, they admit their guilt Jim!

Dave,

...and Labour are still the only party doing anything about it.

They are still the only Party with any complaints to deal with!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:33 AM

Percentages Gnome? I understand perfectly and the 25% one you put up from the YouGov Poll printed in the Guardian article means that (if it is correct) one quarter of the people in the UK are anti-Semitic then within the membership of the political parties in the UK the number of anti-Semites in those parties are as follows in descending order:

Labour - 128,750.

Conservative Party - 37,450.

The SNP - 30,000.

The Liberal Democrats - 19,000.

UKIP - 15,210.

Green Party (England and Wales) - 13,875.

Plaid Cymru - 2,075.

So Gnome the political party in the UK which has the greatest number of anti-Semites IF your Poll is to be believed is? - Labour. Not a question of me not understanding percentages Gnome it is a question of you not understanding percentages as applied to numbers - A percentage of 25% of the population applies to the population as a whole.

"All out of step but our Steve" trying to tell us something again I see.

This time it is "The Shaw" definition of anti-Semitism. Thanks but no thanks, I will stick to the one officially recognised by the UK Government and by 30 other international bodies and Governments.

But perhaps if you believe your definition of anti-Semitism Shaw you can explain to us all why it was that members of the Jewish community in the UK who were members of the Labour Party felt threatened at meetings and intimidated into silence when any subject related to the middle-east was discussed? Tell us what the reason was for one young Labour Party member stating that she would feel safer at a Conservative Party Conference than she did at Labour's conference where she was advised that she would need Police protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:44 AM

"Of course I never have or would."
Why wouldn't you - you have now accused the Jewish Parliamentarians of covering up antitemitism because "they all love their Party.
Probably the most antisemitic statement made of this forum.
Labor do not admit their guilt and even if they did, that hguil;t world have to be proved,
You have lied youtr way throughout this campaign
You "gave us the evidence of Labour antisemisism"
Hen there was no evidence because the Jews covered it up
Now Labour has afdmitted it despite the fact that all the enquiries exonerated them from the accusations
You are insanely irrational in all your arguments Keith - you don't even agree with yourself.
"They are still the only Party with any complaints to deal with!"
Stupider and stupider
The Tories were accused of Islamophobia nearly a year ago
The only reason they don't have "any complaints to deal with!" is that they have no interest in dealing with such matters,
Utterly mad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM

Oh well, that's it all done and dusted then, Brexit here we come!
The Remoaners have capitulated....or is it a tactical withdrawal?
The Lords have also been warned that their coats are on "Shoogly Pegs" should they try conclusions. :0)

The only embarrassment as far as I was concerned, was the sight and sound of my fellow Scots singing the European anthem.....most of them so-called Nationalists......I am thinking of becoming an Ex member.

Perhaps Scottish Labour may take up the Saltire? :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 04:20 AM

Just been putting up a list of quotes from your favourite journalist, white supremist, Ann Coulter Ake - the woman you describe as "The scourge of media Luvvies"
Just to put your gloating into context - here are a few of them again
Jim Carroll

A few more Bon Mots from Annie Get Your Gun - I can see where you fot your hatred of Liberals
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, "
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards (Democratic nominee for Vice Presidency 2004, nominee for President 2008) in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
""I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot." --at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference"
On the 9/11 widows
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration"
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee"
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole."
"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots."
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
"Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties -- provided we're only talking about criminals."
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

Ah, Ok, that is fine then Teribus. As England has the highest number of people in the UK they are therefore the most criminal race in the UK with Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland being veritable paragons of virtue.

What errant nonsense you come out with at times.

Keith - If you want to dispute the findings of the poll then come up with a better one. Until that time it is the only reference we have and as such is very relevant to the discussion. You are like a used car salesman. If people talk about price, you change the subject to quality. If they talk about quality, you change the subject to price. It is transparent. It is old hat. It doesn't work.

FYI the link I posted did not only only comment on 4 statements. It also said

The CAA's own survey of the of 2,230 British Jews found that 56% felt that antisemitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s, which rose to 64% of Jewish people in the north of England.

Did you not get that far or did you purposely not mention that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 04:31 AM

You've already posted that Jim, but I don't suppose you've heard of irony?

From Wiki in a little more depth.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

The reason I gave you that link Jim, is that almost every Quote can be viewed in context........you don't like that sort of thing Jim, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 04:46 AM

You need to be careful on another front Ake, I'm sure it was you who berated me for not keeping on topic.

Having said that the West coast of Scotland is magnificent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM

Apart from the midges, Raggy! A mutual friend lives in the South West of Scotland overlooking Wigtown bay. Not quite the grandeur of further north but very pretty all the same. Have a word with him if you ever fancy going across the water via Stranraer - He is a very gracious host if you decided to stop over there:-) I am sure you know who I mean. Had a lovely coastal walk with him last year around Monrieth where there are lots of connections to Gavin Maxwell of 'Ring of Bright Water' fame including a statue of the otter. The ruins of Kirkmaiden church, where we started and finished the walk, are lovely too.

Glad we are back to sensible again :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 05:17 AM

Ann Coulter is an extremist right wing fascist piece of scum and you quoted her as a serous journalist - and as a backer of your support for Trump (which is very handy)
You are hoist on yor own petard and yor hatred of liberals has finally found its source
You don't like that, do you
Have a good rally now - d'y hear, y'all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM

Dave the Gnome - 09 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

Ah, Ok, that is fine then Teribus. As England has the highest number of people in the UK they are therefore the most criminal race in the UK with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being veritable paragons of virtue.

There you go again Gnome confusing percentages and numbers.

Now if your YouGov Poll in the Guianard had stated that 25% of the UK's population were criminals then based on the population figures England having a larger population than any of the UK's other constituent parts would have more criminals. But no poll does say that does it Gnome as you are dealing with three separate and different criminal legal systems.

The numbers and percentages on Crime though, as you brought it up:

For England & Wales recorded crimes 4.3 million for a population of 57.8 million. (7.45%)

For Scotland recorded crimes 246,243 for a population of 5.3 million. (4.64%)

For Northern Ireland recorded crimes 99,575 for a population of 1.8 million. (5.53%)

So it does indeed seem in fact that - how did you put it again Gnome - "As England has the highest number of people in the UK they are therefore the most criminal race in the UK".

If you did lump them all together you'd get a percentage of 7.15% for the total population of the UK which would in actual fact be a slight underestimation for England & Wales, a gross over-exaggeration for Scotland and a slightly lesser over-exaggeration for Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 06:17 AM

No doubt you can us tell us the mean average, mode average, median average and the range then.

We all know the distortions that can be achieved by manipulating numbers.

Who was it who mentioned Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ..........

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

No, I am not confusing percentages and numbers, Teribus. That is you. If 25% of the population hold some antisemitic views the numbers do not matter. What I and many others have been saying all along is that being a Labour party member does not mean you are more inclined towards antisemitism than anyone else. 1 in 4 of everyone across the political spectrum (apart from that nice Mr Farage's party where it is higher) hold those views. The fact that there are more Labour members is a complete irrelevance. What is of relevance is that Labour are doing something to reduce that 25% while no-one else is.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 07:11 AM

This feller's as much a troll as his mates Dave
He doesn't believe in facts - "all made up shit" to him- wouldn't bother if I were you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM

Dave and Raggytash, Teribus's excursion into figures and percentages is even more ridiculous than his usual ploys. Doesn't seem worth wasting time on.

Do learn to think for yourself instead of appealing to authority, Teribus. The definition you choose to cling to has its roots in illegitimate pressurising by pro-Israeli regime pressure groups and is not a neutral document. That has been flogged to death here, but maybe you didn't notice because you were posting above the line. 😂 Do you honestly think that a document that attempts to inhibit criticism of government policy and actions is legitimate? I don't. But people like Jim and I who have done that here yet never once attacked Jews for being Jews, and never agreed with all those vile conspiracy theories that lump all Jews together, have been called antisemitic or worse and you've never uttered a word. It's safer to cling to somebody else's "words of wisdom" than think things through, innit. It's called Keithism. And if thirty countries, etc., have adopted it, that leaves way over 150 that haven't, doesn't it? You do the percentage math. You seem to like that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 07:39 AM

"If 25% of the population hold some antisemitic views the numbers do not matter. What I and many others have been saying all along is that being a Labour party member does not mean you are more inclined towards antisemitism than anyone else. 1 in 4 of everyone across the political spectrum (apart from that nice Mr Farage's party where it is higher) hold those views. The fact that there are more Labour members is a complete irrelevance." - DtG

IF 1 in 4 of everyone across the political spectrum hold anti-semitic views. The fact that there are more Labour members is far from being a complete irrelevance DtG it means that I am more likely to bump into an anti-Semitic Labour Party member than I am an anti-Semitic member of any other party simply by dint of the fact there a more of the former.

If you ever came up with such a thing as a fact Jim, then I am sure once I'd checked it I'd acknowledge it as being a fact. You unfortunately do not know what is fact and in the midst of your numerous multi-coloured, emotive, spittle-flecked rants you tend to got off into auto and come out with total flights of fancy that are now recognised as "Made-up-shit".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 07:42 AM

No, on reflection Jim, he does have a valid point. If we follow his reasoning as above, IE

Labour had 515,000 members, if your percentages are representative that means that 128,750 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.
The SNP had 120,000 members,if your percentages are representative that means that 30,000 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.
The Liberal Democrats had 76,000, if your percentages are representative that means that 19,000 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.
The Green Party (England and Wales) had 55,500, if your percentages are representative that means that 13,875 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.
UKIP had 39,000 members of whom 39% hold some form of view that could be termed anti-Semitic which would produce a number of 15,210.
Plaid Cymru had 8,300, if your percentages are representative that means that 2,075 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

As of December 2013 (latest published figure) the Conservative Party had 149,800 members. If your percentages are representative that means that 37,450 of them hold some anti-Semitic view.

And then turn that round to those who are NOT antisemitic we get the following figures.

Number of member who are not antisemitic -

Labour - 386250
Conservative - 110550
SNP - 90000
LibDem - 57000
Green - 41125
UKIP - 23790
Plaid Cymru - 6225

So, Labour has 3 times as many members who are not antisemitic than it's nearest rival, the Conservatives and 60 times more than Plaid Cymru.

So, by Teribus's reckoning, The Labour party have the best record which makes Plaid Cymru look like something from 1930s Germany. And yet Labour are still being castigated for trying to make that number even higher. Very odd.

BTW Teribus, you may note that I am using your chosen name. I note your attempt to belittle me (pun intended) by referring to me as 'Gnome'. It doesn't work. As you don't seem to have worked it out, I think I had probably tell you that I am not really a Gnome :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

No he does not Dave - don't fall into this trap
Applying statistics is a stupid thing to arrive at a conclusion.
The Labour Party was formed to combat inequality, injustice and bigorty - whatever its faults, that has remained an essential part of its work right to the present day - as shown by the number of Jewish members who have swept asiide these cliams based on their own experience.
We know that the Conservative party has consistently campaigned on a bigotry ticket - anti immigration, anti foreigner, Britain for the British..... all part of the make up of that Party
When Labour was accused of antisemitism it immediately took it seriously (hence Keith's "serious problem" claim) and held enquiries.
When the Tories were accused of Islamophobia twelve months ago, rather than holding an inquiry, they appointed a foreign secretary notorious for racist gaffes - confirming their position on racism in their party - it is part of what they are
The Tories have not moved far from their pre-war appeasement to antisemitism and wartime "whingeing Yids" stance during WW2 other than to become more sophisticated on the issue.
Bound to knock any Parliamentary statistics sideways.
It would be stupid to take the percentage statistics of, say, the number of Muslims living in Britain - the percentages in say Bradford would bear no relation to those in Chipping Sodbury.
Same with Teribus's statistics.
These people have failed misreably to prove there is a problem of antisemitism in The Labour Party because of a lack of facts to back up their claims.
Teribus is now trying to disprove the facts with hypothetical statistics - that's what he does.
There is no problem in the Labour party until somebody produces factual evidence that there is - it reall doesn't ever get more complicated than that no matter how many smokescreens these people throw up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Brexit is living proof that bigotry is still alive and kicking in British politics
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 08:32 AM

Ha Ha ............ like it Dave.

However IF 25% of the population does hold anti-semetic views it doesn't always follow that 25% of Labour voters hold those views.

It could be higher, it could be lower. Unless peoples voting inclination were also be asked we simply don't know, apart from UKip which was stated.

Of course I don't expect some contributors to be able to comprehend this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

Yes you're correct Raggytash and I apologise, but in my defence it was Jim who brought Ann Coulter into this thread. I thought of ignoring him, but tho' the mind was willing , the flesh was weak :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 08:47 AM

"it was Jim who brought Ann Coulter into this thread."
It was you who brought Brexit into this discussion on antisemitism
"Oh well, that's it all done and dusted then, Brexit here we come!"
We take what we can when we can - just underlining where you stand
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 09:10 AM

Applying statistics is a stupid thing to arrive at a conclusion.

I know, Jum. We seem to be talking at cross purposes today! I was using the same statistics to prove the opposite of what was being said :-)

Cheers

DtG

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

Waste of time Dave
These people are taking it in turns to keep this stupid thread alive - don't help them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:06 PM

"Brexit is living proof that bigotry is still alive and kicking in British politics"
Jim Carroll

And the Brexit vote was brought home by traditional Labour Party voters voting for the UK to LEAVE.

By the bye on the name thing:

I call JIM - JOM because that is how he in the past has referred to himself. By the way Jim it was Gnome who tried to prove something by introducing Poll statistics in this thread.

I refer to Raggy as Raggy because he seems to get selectively Huffy when certain posters refer to him as such, but is quite OK with others using it.

I refer to Shaw as Shaw as I have nothing but contempt for the man.

I refer to Dave the Gnome as "Gnome" as it saves me from typing "Dave the" everytime I address him - He is rather "Gnomish" though, being short, bald, bespectacled, and rotund.

I must admit that I have enjoyed the holiday and tourist ramblings and the mental images conjured of Jim, Raggy, Shaw and Dave scrabbling about o'er hill and dale bears marked similarities to a mixture of "Last of the Summer Wine" and "Lord of the Rings".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:15 PM

"And the Brexit vote was brought home by traditional Labour Party voters voting for the UK to LEAVE."
Nothing to do with racism or antisemitism
"I call JOM - JOM because that is how he in the past has referred to himself"
You are as big a liar a Keith
It was a typo which your limited imagination forced you to pick up on
You have had this explained numerous times
Now you use it to cover up your ignorance and insecurity - by your own adittance, that's why people behave as you do

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:34 PM

By the way, you have no idea what brought home the Brexit vote - no survey was done on which voters voted for what
Brexit was won on the old "foreigners stealing our jobs" ticket - instilling insecurity rather than racism - populism
That was the position that right wing parties like you own fought on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:43 PM

Jum? That only leaves Jam and Jem to choose from!

We should ignore the three idiots in this thread whose agenda is to twist meanings and definitions around in an ideology-led campaign to prove that Labour is somehow the cheerleader for antisemitism in this country. The kindest thing would be to assume that they haven't a clue what antisemitism is (it's a tempting thought as none of them ever tries to think it through for themselves, favouring a definition of very dodgy provenance which has been mindlessly adopted by appeasers of Netanyahu and co). Antisemitism is very easy to spot. It doesn't need complicated definitions full of ifs, buts and other qualifications. Wipe Israel off the map and you're attacking Jews because they are Jews. Accuse Jews of conspiring to control banks and big business etc., antisemitic, no argument. Untrue, so don't say it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 03:43 PM

And the Brexit vote was brought home by traditional Labour Party voters voting for the UK to LEAVE.

"Brexit is living proof that bigotry is still alive and kicking in British politics"
Jim Carroll

For once Carroll is telling the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 04:40 PM

I quiet like being thought as one of the cast of Last of the Summer Wine. I have an admiration of old duffers who still believe they are young at heart .......... long may they do so.

Thanks Territowel

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 05:31 PM

"Nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism"

Hang on a minute Jom, these are both yours aren't they?

Jim Carroll - 09 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

"Brexit is living proof that bigotry is still alive and kicking in British politics"

AND

Jim Carroll - 09 Feb 17 - 03:34 PM

"Brexit was won on the old "foreigners stealing our jobs" ticket - instilling insecurity rather than racism - populism"

What form of "bigotry"? And if "foreigners stealing our jobs" is "populist" then its appeal would be targeted at the solid Labour votes of solid Labour constituencies like Sunderland where the vote to LEAVE was over 70%. Appeals to the xenophobic and racist sympathies of the Labour vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 05:36 PM

Only bespectacled for driving, Teribus, and DtG is even shorter than Gnome (pun intended yet again)

I quite like the idea of a mix of Last of the Summer Wine and Lord of the Rings as well. I think of ake as an Ian McKellen character too, but much more like Freddie in 'Vicious' :-) Not sure if Teribus or Keith are the Jacobi character though. Maybe neither and more like 'The Odd Couple'?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 17 - 07:21 PM

My sister lives three miles away from the Summer Wine locations. I have a photo of me playing the harmonica theme tune outside Sid's café in Holmfirth. You can see Compo inside.

But never mind that. By the way, my last post was sent prematurely and I had more to say but it stands on its own and I can't be arsed. In the seventies I spent three schoolteachers' long holidays in the north-west highlands, namely in Wester Ross and Sutherland. There is nowhere better on God's earth. I climbed Cul Mhor, Cul Beg, Quinag, Ben Loyal, the Five Sisters, the Saddle and more, and we did the notorious Rock Path from Ullapool to Achiltibuie. Mrs Steve joined me (before she was Mrs Steve) in the hot Easter of 1976 and the long, hot summer of that year. What amazing memories. We stayed in youth hostels, our very favourite being Ratagan when John and Sue Fisher were the wardens, and Achmelvich, when Colin Jolly was at the helm - especially Achmelvich.

I could say more and probably will if we get any more moronic antisemitism shite. Innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:01 AM

Whether we get any more of what you refer to as "moronic anti-Semitism shite" with regard to the Labour Party will depend very much on how members of the Labour Party act and whether or not it is reported Shaw, but please by all means keep up the travelogue it sure as hell is an improvement on your usual ideologically biased tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM

" then its appeal would be targeted at the solid Labour votes of solid Labour constituencies like Sunderland "
It's appeal was to the people whose lives have been fouled up by the fouled up system Britain now has - that's how populism works
Proof of its bigoted nature lies in the rise in racist incidents follwing the result.
Applying it to 'Labour voters' is just right-wing agenda-driven sloganising.
All shades of politics has been debased and disgraced in Britain - 'lying, self-serving politicians is part of the national; psyche.
You keep throwing up these feeble excuses then thinking up yet more when they crash in flames - a war of attrition, just like WW1 and just as crudely fought.
The fact that you still need your insulting rhetoric to deliver you bon mottes is indicative that you are fully aware of the vacuity of your arguments - it makes you look unpleasant and stupid - like all bullies - it always has.
"Jum? That only leaves Jam and Jem to choose from! "
"Doesn't compute, doesn't compute" font confuse his somewhat limited imagination
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:18 AM

"font confuse"
There you go Teribus - another typo for you to get your gums into
Should read "Don't confuse", of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM

I think you have to go to Shaw for corrections on spelling, punctuation and grammar Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:22 AM

"I think you have to go to Shaw for corrections on spelling, punctuation and grammar Jom."
"Badly written" and typos was your favourite ploy when you ran out of ideas (wich was and is often) and you know it
Roosters coming home
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:24 AM

And still your imbecilic "Jom"
"To ignorant to know and too thick to learn", as they say in Lancashire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

One would think that only labour voters cast their ballots in some regions.

Another thing we need to understand, although some plainly don't, is that there is difference between Labour Party Members and Labour Party Voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM

Forgot to ask, Steve. On your visits to your sister have you ever come across any number of elderly men careering down the road in an uncontrolled manner in or on any sort of unlikely wheeled conveyance? Just realised as well. Remember me mentioning the 1930s hikers coming off Kinder early one morning? It could well have been Foggy and a soulmate. Not that far from Holmfirth :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:53 AM

Not "Sue Fisher." It was Jan Fisher, who, to my knowledge, is still painting beautiful pictures and who has a gallery At Pittenweem in Fife. Good for a google. John, her husband and the then warden of Ratagan hostel, is also an artist. I have two lovely Jan Fisher watercolours on my wall which I bought from her for a few quid in 1976.

Don't go telling akenaton and Keith about your praise for my travelogues, Teribus. They both think I should be hanged, drawn and quartered for hijacking this precious thread. And do you see how I twisted things there?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

It was all very peaceful on the day we did the Summer Wine tourist trail, Dave, the only disturbance being the wail of my harmonica outside the caff. By the way, my sister has a letter in today's Grauniad. See if you can spot it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM

Well, if travelogues are now "permissible" my happy hunting ground as a teenager was invariably the Peak District. Train out to Chapel-en-le-Frith or Buxton on a Friday evening, a walk to a YHA, all day Saturday walking and then Sunday walk to a train station and back to Manchester.
A walk of 30-35 miles on a Saturday was quite common.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM

Yep - Found it. Good point too considering the blurring of fact and fiction around here at times :-)

DtG

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

1: "It's appeal was to the people whose lives have been fouled up by the fouled up system Britain now has - that's how populism works"

Since 1973 the EU has played a major role in whatever "system Britain now has". How "populism" works Jim, is that a political party jumps on the bandwagon of issues the public are vocal about. They then campaign touting policies that seek to address those issues which they know full well will be popular - hence the term "populist".

2: Proof of its bigoted nature lies in the rise in racist incidents follwing the result.

I would think that the number of "bigots" remained unchanged pre and post Brexit. The result emboldened some of them to act who otherwise would not have acted.

3: Applying it to 'Labour voters' is just right-wing agenda-driven sloganising.

Suggestion for you Jim, quite easy and it does not take 5 minutes of your time. Go on Google and do two searches:

Search 1 - EU Referendum results in Maps
Search 2 - 2015 UK General Election results in Maps

The 2015 GE was not really all that great for Labour so the latter search throws up what I would call "hard core Labour" areas. Compare those to the areas that were the strongest Leave areas in the EU Referendum - You will find that apart from London - they were the same. (Now I know that you will not do that Jim, but others following this thread might and they will see that I am telling the truth.).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM

"Since 1973 the EU has played a major role in whatever "system Britain now has""
Britain became fouled up long before the E.U. was a twinkle in Britain's eye.
It started when the Tories began dismantling the limited progressive policies introduced by the post war Labour Government and reached its peak under Thatcher, who silenced the voice of working people in their place of work and set about destroying Britain's industrial base.
The E.U. was never more than an attempt by failing Capitalism to act in unison to stop the rot - a co-operation of Capitalist nations.
Whatever its failings, workers under Capitalism gained some limited advantages - not ideal, but better than what was happening.
Now that's gone.
"I would think that the number of "bigots" remained unchanged pre and post Brexit."
Brexit opened the door to racist and bigoted behaviour - it was won of a bigotry ticket.
"EU Referendum results in Maps"
Britain overall is a racist country - a quarter of those surveyed on their racist vies indicated that to be the case - part of the heritage left to us by Empire
Attempting to islolate that to Labour voters is as stupid as it gats.
This thread has been about Labour Party members supposed antisemitism, not that of Labour voters.
If you are suggesting that working people are more racist than any other class in Britain, you are even more extreme and stupid as you have already prved yourself to be.
Racism among the less well off is the result of the fear generated by scum like Ukip and the BNP, and fortified by vote seeking politicians who blame immigration on the failures of society rather than their own greed and incompetence - scapegoat politics - a favourite in Nazi Germany where the Jews were the target.
You really are a little goose-stepper, aren't you?
"Jom"
Still the same old, same old imbecility -are you really so insecure in your position?
For crying out loud, grow up and try to conduct a reasonable argument without the blustering bullshit - how old are you?
It's like trying to discuss with a truculent child
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM

On a much pleasanter topic Tornado loco 60163 will be passing within half a mile of our house on Monday evening on its way to haul Northern Rail trains between Skipton and Appleby from the 14th to the 16th of Feb. I am no big rail buff or anything but I think it is nice to see these things. I am also at Ribblehead next weekend but, sadly, will not see it going over the Ribblehead viaduct as the service will have finished by then. Ah well, can't have everything.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

"Much pleasanter topic," Dave? How can it be when you're blatantly using it to bully and intimidate akenaton, boobs and Keith! Next time they come in here with their pathetic attempts to get this thread back on track, I'm going to metaphorically beat them round the head with a maidenhair fern frond, just you wait and see!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:14 AM

Marsh Fragrant Orchids abound on the Connemara from early May. Literally thousands of them. There are other species as well which I may well describe later on.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:30 AM

Yes, I must apologise for that. I did not realise that holidays, beauty spots and wild flowers were so intimidating. In future I shall stick to nice fluffy topics such as terrorists, mass murderers and paedophiles.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM

If you no longer wish to continue the thread, why not let it die instead of drivelling on about plants and holidays. Grow up and start another dedicated thread if you wish to bore everyone with a travelogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:46 AM

Ah Iains, some of us like talking about holidays, flowers etc, I could suggest if you don't like reading about them you don't read the posts.

Much easier I think.

Let me tell you about Dr Heather Greer, an acquaintance of mine. Last year she published a beautiful book entitled "On Your Doorstep" which details the moths and butterflies commonly found near where she lives on the Aughrus Peninsula, which is on the Connemara

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

"If you no longer wish to continue the thread, why not let it die instead of drivelling on about plants and holidays."
If you wish to take part in this thread, feel free to do so - this is your only posting to this thread to date, so how people conduct themselves on it is really none of your business.
This thread has been flogged to death by people who wish to denigrate the Labour Party with false accusations - to my recollection it is the fourth on all prolonged by the same gang
Not a scrap of material proof has been proved of antisemitism but it hasn't stopped the Gang of Three?four from trying
It is long overdue that they either put up their proof or put ther cuase down to a miserably failed one.
You want to give us evidence of antisemitism beyond unqualified accusations, feel free
Otherwise, it really is nothing to do with you
Have a nice day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:56 AM

It's a funny thing, Raggy. Those who complain about the content of threads cannot seem to resist looking at them. It reminds me of the Mary Shitehouse and Lord Longknob fiasco where they had to study pornography constantly just to see how bad it was. I can only put it down to a masochistic streak. Or maybe just a need to complain? Perhaps if they spent more time studying our beautiful world they would not be so petulant.

I will try to be back while it is still light at Ribblehead so we can have a look at what is growing near by then we can report to Steve on anything interesting. Last time I found a pair of knickers!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:05 AM

"Last time I found a pair of knickers!"
"Last night's Fun" as they are referred to around here!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:10 AM

One of my mates here found a single, black sock in the street. Over the next few months we would text each other if we saw one, which was quite often. On one occasion we came across 3 black socks together ........... very strange

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

...and why is there always a single trainer by the side of a busy road?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM

"..and why is there always a single trainer by the side of a busy road?"
Do you fellers know about the single trainer hanging over the overhead telephone wires?
Raggy probably does, being where he is!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM

It's usually a pair hanging over the wires near where we were in Salford. Not seen it much in the Dales.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:04 AM

A local Guard (boy in blue) told me that it's an indication that drugs are available locally - never tested the claim
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:05 AM

Not there at the moment Jim, but I once saw a watercolour in a pub in Ireland which had birds on the telegraph wires. On looking closer I saw they depicted musical notation, very clever I thought except that it was the notation for the British National Anthem.

Say nowt was my policy, but the next time I visited the print has gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Sorry - should be a pair of trainers tied together by the laces obviously
Multi-tasking getting teh batter of me
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:09 AM

Oh - Forgot to tell you, Raggy. I have a roll of toilet paper with a picture of Donald Trump's face on each sheet :-) I'll try to save you some if you like but I suspect it will vanish pretty quickly in the bunk house.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

I think I have more respect for my arse than to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:19 AM

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

Two elderly Welsh neighbours relieving themselves in their outside lavortories at the bottom of their respective yards.
"Hmmmmm – is that you Mrs Evans?"
"Hmmmmm – it is Mrs Jones"
"Hmmmmm – been meaning to ask you; how's your son Dai doin' – haven't seen him round lately"
"Hmmmmm – 'es livin in Cardiff"
"Hmmmmm – big town - what's 'e doin' there?"
"Hmmmmm – 'e's in the theatre, 'e's playin' Hamlet".
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm", ooo! That's a hard part".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM

If anyone finds a camera case to fit an Olympus Trip at the the bottom of Ill Bell in the Lake District, it's mine. Blew out of my hand in a gale when we were standing on the summit in 1981.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:38 PM

Keep meaning to get back to you on those Connemara orchids, Raggytash, but it's been one of those days when I keep getting waylaid. English names can be a right bugger. I'm off to the ballet tomorrow afternoon but I'll be back after that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM

Courtesy of Matt in today's Telegraph:

Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Labour's stuck with Corbyn
And I'm stuck with you

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM

Brilliant
That clinches the argument - or at least, indicates the level it is operating at
Where do you come up[ with this astounding logic Teribus?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 06:53 AM

A bit weak as a jest, but change the name it could be used for any politician, it'd still be weak though. I would have thought that the Telegraph might be above such juvenile prose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 07:18 AM

Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Mays stuck with Brexit
And Trump is too.
another puerile ditty written in the style of McGonagle

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 07:24 AM

Must admit, I much prefer the Liverpool kids version:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Shit stinks,
So do you

Much more to the point
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 07:53 AM

I think Mr T's irony was aimed at those who imagine that this thread is about horticulture.   :0)

"None so blind"....eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:03 PM

It may as well be about horticulture. Most things would grow very will given the amount of shite being heaped on it :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:35 PM

Steve - I remembered to look for an old piccie when I went to my Mum's earlier today. Ambrose Barlow Youth Club, probably 1968. I am 4th from the left on the front row looking particularly dapper in a brown herringbone jacket and fawn cavalry twills. I must also say looking pretty cool sandwiched between 2 rather nice young ladies:-) Father Sweeney is just left of centre, back row, and obviously not a youth but seemingly enjoying the proximity of the young lady to the right of me. I'll never get to heaven will I..?

I am experimenting with sharing stuff on Google+ so let me know if you can see it on this link.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 02:15 PM

Nice pic, Dave! Are you sure that Fr Sweeney's first name wasn't, appropriately looking at the photo, "Roger?" 😜

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

I've never noticed the look of shock on her face or wondered why she had her hands behind her back until you mentioned that...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM

Are you sure he wasn't "a Swedish Sweeney Todd, the dirty sod?" 😇

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM

One area of the Connemara, Slyne Head (which boasts two lighthouses) is a place with a remarkable array of orchids. Frequently found are the Greater Butterfly Orchid which is stunningly beautiful in June and July.

http://www.caithness.org/fpb/2013/june/gallery.php?gallery=2&image=5

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:25 AM

I haven't forgotten about the orchids but I keep getting waylaid. I'll get my Atlas of the British Flora (Ireland covered) out as soon as I've watched Burnley hopefully slaughtering Chelsea, ko 12.30. Won't be doing much else today. I'm not going outside into that bloody freezing east wind.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:39 AM

Damn. Ko is 1.30, not 12.30. Somebody duped me with fake news. Or was it an alternative fact. So I'm just off to shoehorn in a quick trip to Morrisons. This is a lot better than squabbling with the alt-right, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:39 AM

Absofuckinglutely.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM

Well the brave lads of Burnley held Chelsea at bay and their new signing scored a spectacular goal from a free kick. Just off to cook a pork fillet stuffed with Cumberland sausage meat and wrapped in streaky bacon that I got from Gloucester Services a bit back and put in the freezer. Cabbage, carrots and spuds roasted in ethical goose fat. Morrisons are selling a lovely Prosecco for a fiver. Could share a bottle of that. If I have room I'll finish with a nice Sicilian Nero d'Avola. I will have room.

Haven't forgotten the orchids!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 01:58 PM

The ethical goose, by the way, had never once been known to swear, act in a racist manner towards geese of other species, discriminate against mallards or try to goose a gander.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 02:42 PM

Just had a Duck breast for our Sunday Lunch. Sear in a dry pan till the skin is golden, then bake for 6 to 8 minutes in a hot even until rare. Serve on a bed of Kale, with deep friend potato cubes, edememe beans, a sauce made fro Meso paste, honey and water reduced to a good consistency and finally sprinkled with Sesame seeds.

Utterly delightful .......... with a glass of decent wine of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 06:24 PM

Raggytash, I've had my Atlas out and have made a list of the orchids likely to be found in Connemara. Here goes:

Rare in the area:
marsh helleborine
lesser twayblade
narrow-leaved marsh
fragrant
northern marsh
bee

In a good few sites:
common twayblade
autumn ladies' tresses
Irish ladies' tresses (but not near the coast)
greater butterfly
lesser butterfly
early purple (blotchy leaves, flowers in April)
common spotted
heath spotted
early marsh
pyramidal
frog
western marsh
green-winged

English names can be a bit of a nightmare but those ones are out of the Botanical Society's Atlas. Bet you can't find 'em all!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

Sorry for the delay in answering. I have been on my travels again.
I watched Andrew Marr on Sunday. Plenty to discuss about Labour. Most of the programme. No need for a travelogue instead.


Jim,
Why wouldn't you - you have now accused the Jewish Parliamentarians of covering up antitemitism because "they all love their Party.
Probably the most antisemitic statement made of this forum.

As ever with your made up smears, no actual quote is produced.
You are lying about me again.
They covered nothing up. They reported it to their Party for the Party to deal with.
That is how it is done.
Those who complained about misogyny and homophobia in Labour did exactly the same, putting their complaints to the Party to be dealt with.

Dave,

Keith - If you want to dispute the findings of the poll then come up with a better one.

I did not dispute the findings, but your CAA survey only concerned itself with four old anti-Semitic clichés which had no bearing on the complaints coming out of Labour, which is what I said.

The CAA's own survey of the of 2,230 British Jews found that 56% felt that antisemitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s, which rose to 64% of Jewish people in the north of England.

Did you not get that far or did you purposely not mention that?

The other survey that you quoted found that most of the anti-Semitism comes from another minority ethnic group and is much rarer in the general population.

From your link,

"The group also carried out its own separate survey of British Jews, which found that 54% feared they had no future in the UK and that a quarter had considered leaving the country in the last two years.
The CAA described the research as "a wake-up call" following last week's terror attacks in France, in which the victims included four Jewish men who were killed in a Paris Kosher supermarket."

So their concern about anti-Semitism in UK, as in Europe, is linked to Islamist terror and not anti=Semitism in the general population.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 04:57 AM

Tell us some more about the flowers in Connemara and restore some sanity into this thread Raggy - please
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

Keith's holidays never seem to do him much good. He says he isn't going to take this shit away with him. Poor chap can't seem to resist though.

Another spring-like day in Cornwall after a damp night. The great tits are already feeling territorial. Funny to think that what we regard as their beautiful singing is actually them threatening their rivals and telling them to bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM

I did not take it with me Steve, I came home to it.
Dave and Jim put some points to me after I left, so now I have answered them. Is that wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM

In late May and throughtout June the road sides and boggy ground are awash with glorious Yellow Flag Iris. In some areas there are literally thousands of them growing wild. These together with Dog Daisy provide a wonderful backdrop wherever you travel. It really is very beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM

Have you managed to travel out to any of the small islands Rag?
Did you know that the film maker who worked with MacColl and Seeger, Phillip Donnelan, once owned Mason Island?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

Interestingly, the word "orchid" is derived from the ancient Greek word for "testicle." The connection is that the tubers of many orchid species look very much like assemblages of the aforementioned male appendages. Oddy, "orchestra" has a completely different derivation. In ancient Greek or Roman theatres, the orchestra was a semicircular area at the front of the theatre where the chorus resided, often getting up to dance.

As we all know, many people on Mudcat talk bollocks. But now Raggytash and I are delighting, when exchanging notes on orchids, in talking literal bollocks. Very amusing! Well I think so anyway! The only people who disagree are those who talk the other kind of bollocks. They must think they have a monopoly on bollocks. Well bollocks to 'em, say I!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

I have visited Inishmore briefly and Inishbofin more than briefly. I've been invited to Inishbofin later this year to join in a weekend long session with some of the fine musicians off the Connemara who travel over each summer.

Innisnee now has a bridge across to it as do Lettermore and Lettercallow.

Further afield I have stayed on Achill twice, a wonderful place and Belmullet both accessible now by bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 07:11 AM

You have a lot of royal fern out there too, Raggytash. I remember the excitement when I found just a couple of tiny sprigs of it growing out of the canal wall in Radcliffe. Then we went to Ireland and it was everywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Jim, you accused me of making, "Probably the most antisemitic statement made of this forum."

I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such.
I find your lies and evasions despicable.

We have had real anti-Semitic posts from you. Would you like to be reminded?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:09 AM

I've never used the expression "lying bollocks" in my life. Saying that I have is just lying bollocks. And there's a first.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:14 AM

"I have never used the expression lying bollocks in my life"

Until now Steve, until now :-)

I'll keep an eye out for Royal Fern

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:20 AM

Could we be in for a revolution in language here? Will "lying bollocks" replace "made-up shit?" Can it gain currency? Any suggestions for replacements for "baseless accusations" and "spittle-flecked rants?" What about a new term for "you lose?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:22 AM

Steve, you used the expression "bollocks" in your earlier post.
That is what I referred to.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

""lying bollocks"
I suppose it depends which side you dress on Steve - personally, I favour the left.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:26 AM

Bollocks is not the same as lying bollocks is it. In this case you are talking both.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:40 AM

The pack of jackals still stalking their prey I see and no moderation to be seen......hmm, I wonder why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM

There is a very simple solution Bobad. Refrain from posting lies and bollocks.

Simples.............

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM

"The pack of jackals still stalking their prey"
it seems our prey is stalking us Bobad.
He chose to re-humiate himself, we were happy to leave him where he was.
Moderation - for ***** sake, we are attempting to ignore him
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 10:04 AM

Or better yet, Bobad - refrain from posting, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 10:27 AM

I know I shall not take or bring back any of this crap over the weekend. Not sure why it has been spewed forth again here really. Surely all that has had to be said has been, well, ...said.

Some lovely pictures of the Tornado crossing Ribblehead viaduct appearing on the Yorkshire Dales Facebook page. Which is better or worse for the local flora and fauna, Steve? Steam or Diesel?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 11:49 AM

In the wide open spaces of upper Ribblesdale, Dave, I doubt that it makes much difference. Sod it. Enjoy the puffer train!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM

"Or better yet, Bobad - refrain from posting, period."
Unless he'd like to comment on Keith's antisemitic claim of a Jewish Parliamentarian's 'Pact of Silence'
Don't suppose there's much chance of that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Dave,
Not sure why it has been spewed forth again here really. Surely all that has had to be said has been, well, ...said.

No Dave. Both you and Jim put points to me which I failed to respond to because I was away.
Neither of you withdrew your points so I responded as soon as I could.

You have both chided me in the past when you thought I had failed to respond to points put to me by yourselves.

Rag,
Bollocks is not the same as lying bollocks is it. In this case you are talking both

Care to identify any lie or anything false (bollocks) that I have posted Rag?
No. How could you? You are just making shit up.

I did not suggest that Steve used the expression "lying bollocks."
He used the expression "bollocks" five times in just two lines of his earlier post.
That is what I referred to.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Jim,
Unless he'd like to comment on Keith's antisemitic claim of a Jewish Parliamentarian's 'Pact of Silence'
Don't suppose there's much chance of that!

How could he?
It is a lie that I have ever made such a claim.

You have made such a nasty and anti-semitic claim though Jim.

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 07:56 PM
"Can you describe the antisemitism that is taking place and the numvbers concerned Keith
No - of course you can't - the Jewish members have entered into a pact of silence to hide it.
Game over I think Keith"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 01:04 PM

A quote from the National Chair of Labour Students, yesterday.

"Labour Students, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Union of Jewish Students are coming together on Monday at Oxford University Labour Club to launch the start of a series of training sessions on tackling anti-Semitism in Labour Clubs and on campus.

With sessions planned at Bangor, Stirling, Leeds, Sheffield, Durham, KCL, Bristol and many more, we hope this will bring the positive changes the student movement urgently needs.

"It's taken over a year for the students at Oxford University Labour Club to receive a response from the Labour Party and for a decision to be made on the cases of anti-Semitism – a year in which Jewish students have had to consistently fight to define their own oppression."

Read more,
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/solidarity-with-jewish-students-its-time-for-deeds-as-well-as-words/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 01:07 PM

No Dave. Both you and Jim put points to me which I failed to respond to because I was away.
Neither of you withdrew your points so I responded as soon as I could.

Whether you chose to respond to anything is entirely up to you, Keith, but seeing as no one had even mentioned that you had not even posted for a few days I think it highly unlikely that anyone would have chided you.

Been anywhere of interest BTW? Hope it was pleasure rather than necessity.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM

Tell you what, lads. Let's have a six-month long quarrel about whether Keith meant bollocks or lying bollocks. That should be fun, and, who knows, by the end of it he might have forgotten all about "L.b..r's ant.s..it.sm pr.bl.m." Wheeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 01:30 PM

But bollocks can be fun. Especially talking complete bollocks in the pub. When it is utter bollocks or lying bollocks it can lean toward the disparaging. I think we initially need to define a proper meaning for both 'lying' and 'bollocks' before we can discuss anything about them either individually or collectively. We know from experience that unless the guidelines are drawn up clear and concisely in the first place different meanings will be placed on them by different people and there will, of course, only be one winner.

Now, is that bollocks, lying bollocks or alt truth? I have lost the plot and maybe the will to live...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 02:08 PM

Oh, and 400! On a completely non-bollical note (pun intended) I just played through Constant Billy, Fanny Power, Planxty Irwin and the Jenny Lind Polka better than I have ever done before. Wonder if I can only play tunes with a y in them?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 04:01 PM

"I did not suggest that Steve used the expression "lying bollocks."
He used the expression "bollocks" five times in just two lines of his earlier post. That is what I referred to" (15.2.17 12.44pm)

HOWEVER EARLIER YOU POSTED:

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such. I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)

Did you or did you not post these professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM

He did, he did, he DID! 🤡

Now we need to define terms here. When we speak of lying bollocks we must assume that we agree that we are not referring to the disposition of the aforementioned family jewels within the frontal trouser department. In that matter we do not speak of which way the said danglies "lie," but instead of "which way one dresses." I mean, toujours la politesse, eh, chaps? Personally I dress to the left, but hey. It doesn't mean that my tackle are hard left, but that thought invites diversions that are inappropriate on this mixed forum so let's not go there. Uninvited anyway. No, we speak of the untruths routinely propagated by those usual suspects who don't actually think they are usual suspects. Ironically, the term "lying bollocks" was coined by a man who accused yours truly of coining the phrase, as Raggytash has demonstrated. What I'm trying to say is that the man who invented lying bollocks then accused me of inventing lying bollocks is talking lying bollocks.

Can you have "truthful bollocks?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:45 PM

the man who invented lying bollocks then accused me of inventing lying bollocks is talking lying bollocks.

Sounds rather like the Trump-Conway-Spicer trio, dunnit?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:53 PM

Nah, they're nuts. Er, which I suppose could be the same thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 07:48 PM

I hope you fellers are lying down while you write bollocks
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 08:21 PM

It's worth pointing out that "bollocks" does not always carry pejorative undertones. Consider the following construction:

"Cor, that Liverpool striker scored a hat-trick against that bunch of three-legged cart-horses known as Manchester United. The bloke is the absolute bollocks!"

(Depending on where you come from, "dog's dangly bits" or simply "dog's danglies" may be inserted in place of "bollocks." Not literally inserted).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:12 AM

Dave, I have been visiting family, mostly in Cornwall, who I have mostly not seen since I became ill. It was lovely thank you.
I had intended staying in touch, but the time just evaporated.

I do not think it unreasonable to reply to points specifically put to me, especially Jim's claim that I had posted something anti-Semitic when he was the only one who had done that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

Rag,
Did you or did you not post these professor.

Of course I did. I referred to Steve's repeated use of the expression "bollocks" in his previous post, as I have already explained at least twice Rag!

Returning to the discussion, has no-one a comment to make about the Labour Student Leader confirming Baroness Royale's view that her report had been ignored and no action taken to stop the anti-Semitism she reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM

Glad to hear it Keith. You should have popped in to see Steve! You could have both talked bollocks in the pub then go for a lie down :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Very nice here this week. Daffs out everywhere, third sunshiny day in a row today, mercury low to mid-teens, lots of territorial birdsong, celandines shining bright like little gold stars. Reet grand. Even got me grass cut on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM

You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks" he did not. You then denied you had said this ........ a lie.

Even when confronted with the truth you lie yet again.

To quote yourself " I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)"

I am sure I am not alone in finding your posts tedious and tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:08 AM

Ye gods, it's a truly gorgeous day here. Might go for a stroll on the cliffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:16 AM

It's even warm in Bradford although slightly overcast. No cliff to walk along but have I mentioned I am going to Ribblehead tomorrow?

:D tG

Got a bit of a bug though :-( Sore-throaty and wheezy. Hope the alcohol cure works...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 09:55 AM

Pack of trolling hyenas still at it I see - SSDD.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:01 AM

" No cliff to walk along"
Here's a solution to your problem, - then you both can meet on neutral ground with Raggy and me and have a pint - but please leave Keith at home, especially know how her regards the Irish (brainwashed morons)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM

Rag,
You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks"

No I did not. He had just used the expression "bollocks" five times in one post and I referred to that, as I have repeatedly explained to you.

Dave, have you given up trying to make the case that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties, and is at least doing something about it?

We see no complaints of it from other parties, and all the evidence is that the problem is still not being addressed by Labour.
We have had that stated by Tom Watson, Sadiq Khan, Baroness Royale and now Kate Dearden, so that case must be considered knocked flat.
Labour does have a particular problem with anti-Semitism, and is failing to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 10:19 AM

Jim, the Irish are no more "brainwashed" or "moronic" than any other ethnic group.
Why this insatiable need to smear me with lies Jim?
It can only be because you are utterly incapable of challenging anything that I actually say!
It does not make you look good Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 11:16 AM

Dave, have you given up trying to make the case that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties....

At least Dave admits that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party unlike those others who deny it, understandably so as they are in agreement with the anti-Semitic utterances that have emanated from Labour's anti-Semites.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 11:48 AM

"Jim, the Irish are no more "brainwashed" or "moronic" than any other ethnic group.
Keith -
You described Irish chilen as having been brainwashed by their education system, yet you were totally unable to produce evidenvce of it, claiming you had been told it by one of your mythical "historians"
You repeated it over and over again on several Irish threads
On this forum you have claimed the Jewish members of parliament have refused to disclose the nature of the "antisemitism" they are supposed to have been subjected to because of their love for their party - a 'Jewish pact of silence'
When I repeated it here, you accused me if antisemitism
You are one of the most despicably dishonest people I have ever encountered - it is little wonder you are regarded with the ridicule that you are.
"At least Dave admits that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party"
Bobad
Nobody has ever claimed that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party - what has been claimed that it is not the major problem that is being claimed and that the accusations have been looked into and found to be groundless.
Antisemitism is the oldest form of bigotry and is to be found in every section of society
When Labour was accused of it, the accusations were taken seriously and found not to be a serious problem - end of story.
I ask again, Keith has repeated on numerous occasions that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to descrbe the antisemistims because of their love for their party
Do you not find that antisemitic?
I have no intention of participating in this mindnumingly dishonest thread - I just wanted to set the record straight.
If you can't be honest, as far as I am concerned you can piss off
You've fucked up enough threads - the pair of you
Jim Carroll

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

Walked on the cliffs between Widemouth Bay and Bude, then down to Bude canal. Pleasant underfoot, very mild and sunny with a lovely sky. Gorse in full regalia already, and we saw primroses, snowdrops, periwinkles, daffodils and scurvy-grass in bloom. There was a little egret in the river just by the castle. Looking like a vintage sunset coming up. Sorry to be such a hyena-like troll. Let sleeping bollocks lie!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 12:48 PM

"There was a young lady from Bude....
Did you meet her Steve?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Dave, have you given up trying to make the case that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties, and is at least doing something about it?

Well, that all depends what you mean by given doesn't it Keith. I have made my point so there is little point in making it again. And again. And again. And again. And again...

So, no I have not given up on the point but there is no mileage in discussing it any further. That is how I have time for the more pleasant things in life. Like Ribblehead, steam trains, wild flowers and holidays. You must try it sometime :-)

At least Dave admits that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party unlike those others who deny it

No one has denied it bobad. You are fighting a straw man.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 02:52 PM

Jim,
You described Irish chilen as having been brainwashed by their education system, yet you were totally unable to produce evidenvce of it,

Both you and Steve have vilified the Catholic Church for brainwashing children, and Catholic education is particularly influential in the Republic, so presumably this is an issue for both of you.

I quoted two historians who both said that the Irish school system taught a version of history that placed far more blame on Britain than was reasonable. One actually used the word "indoctrinate" which is synonymous with "brainwashing."

On this forum you have claimed the Jewish members of parliament have refused to disclose the nature of the "antisemitism" they are supposed to have been subjected to

Repetition of this lie of yours does not make it any less of a lie Jim!

I have never claimed any such nonsense, and nor would I!

I said that they made their complaints, replete with full details, to the Party leadership for them to deal with.
Those complaining of misogyny and homophobia within the Party did exactly the same.

I also quoted from a post of yours where you appear to make the claim yourself that you falsely accused me of making!

Here it is again,
Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 08 Feb 17 - 07:56 PM

"Can you describe the antisemitism that is taking place and the numvbers concerned Keith
No - of course you can't - the Jewish members have entered into a pact of silence to hide it.
Game over I think Keith"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM

Dave,
I have made my point so there is little point in making it again.

But you have not made the point Dave. Stating it is not making it.

If it is an issue for all parties, why are there no complaints about it from those other parties as there are from Labour?
Why has the leadership and so many prominent members acknowledged that it is a serious problem for the party?

Unless you can answer that, you have no case.

If as you claim, Labour is working to address the issue, why are so many prominent people, all in a position to know, adamant that nothing has been done?

If you can only witter on about trains and flowers but not answer those basic questions, you have not made your point at all!
Are you going to?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:08 PM

Keith. I have made my point. You think I have not. There is absolutely no point in discussing it any further with you. We will never agree.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Now, can we discuss sensible things like trains, flowers and bollocks without these constant interuptions please?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:13 PM

Steve, given my current state of man flu and the overall age of our party being slightly more than that of Methuselah I am pretty sure we will only do about 5 miles on Saturday afternoon. That sounds like a good case for the Ingleton waterfalls walk. What should I be looking out for at this time of year on limestone, beside rivers and falls and in the deeper gorges?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM

"Rag,You suggested Steve used the term "lying bollocks"

I suggested no such thing, you did.

"No I did not. He had just used the expression "bollocks" five times in one post and I referred to that, as I have repeatedly explained to you."

Yes you did "professor" It is here in black and white recorded for prosperity for all to see, you quote is below.

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, TO USE STEVE'S EXPRESSION"

Your quote, verbatim,you said Steve used the expression "lying bollocks" he did not and never has done as he stated very clearly.

You are completely unprincipled, dishonest, deceitful and you consider yourself to be a Christian.

I trust you can sleep easy with your lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Dave, you can discuss anything you like, but you are clearly unable to make that point or explain how it can possibly be true in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

My point is that anti-Semitism is a particular problem for Labour and nothing is being done about it.
I have made that point by quoting numerous prominent people within Labour who are well placed to know the facts, all adamant that it is a particular problem and it is not being dealt with.

What have you produced Dave?
Sorry, but just stating a point is not making a point.

You had better just stick to the trains and flowers.
Off you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM

Rag,
" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, TO USE STEVE'S EXPRESSION"

Yes, I said that though I did not shout.
Steve's expression I referred was "bollocks" not "lying bollocks" for the simple and obvious reason that he did not use the latter.
He had used the former 5 times in a post just before mine.

Perhaps I should have identified the expression with quotes, but as Steve had just used it five times in one post the meaning would be obvious to anyone of intelligence and not deliberately trying to stir up an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

He does it all the time, Raggytash. Tell you what. I'll get him to waste even more his time by reminding him of how he did similar over Geoffrey Wheatcroft all those years ago, when he blatantly misrepresented what poor old Geoffrey said and refused to admit it. It's the refusing to admit it that grates, innit, if you let it. Which it doesn't with me, but how I love to remind him of his double standards. So typical of the man.

But why spoil a beautiful day! Dave, it's a bit early to expect the wildlife to have woken up much in t'Dales. You might catch a few of the smaller evergreen ferns such as wall-rue, maidenhair spleenwort and green spleenwort (a bit special, that one, but common enough on limestone rocks and walls). Lots of mosses and liverworts stand out at this time of year before all those big flowering wotsits get going. I've done the Ingleton waterfall walk several times. Don't slip! I'm envying you here!

Yours truly,

Steve (hyena-like forum troll for refusing to talk about LAP, aka "Labour's antisemitism problem," preferring instead to look up from mud to stars! )

Jim, I've "met" a number of young ladies from Bude, but can't discuss 'em in case Mrs Steve's discovered my password...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:17 PM

I am grateful that in less than 4 weeks I will be back in Ireland where I have far better things to do than argue with a pathological liar.

The thing that does surprise me though is that the ONLY person who does not recognise this fact is the liar himself.

Over the course of my life I have met and worked with many people with psychological disorders.

Seldom, if ever, have I ever met with someone as dysfunctional as this man.





Thank God I'm not a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM

I was just going to switch off but you deserve an explanation at least, Keith. It is blatantly obvious that on this we are on a completely different wavelength. I am sure we have lot of things in common but politics is not one of them. I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is. You started the contention. It is up to you to prove it and, so far, you have not.

Let's face it though. This is not about the issue, it is about you. You do this in everything and, fair enough, if you enjoy arguing, then go for it. But don't expect people to fall in with it. Let us examine what is going on. Any debate is based around trying get someone to agree to something. We know that in this case, as in many others, you will never get people to agree with your points so what is the other motive? You like to win. That is proven with your constant 'You lose' comments. Again, fine, if you feel the need to win then feel free. You have won. Easy. But the victory is rather hollow if we do that isn't it. You want to prove people wrong and show what a mighty intellect you have. Again. Prove away. No skin off my nose and if it makes you feel better then it does do some good.

From now on I will make my point and you are free to disagree if you like but don't expect me to continue the argument so you can flex your intellectual muscles as if you were on a Californian beach. Greg came out with a wonderful expression the other day. "Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk". I intend to make it my maxim from now on.

Anyroads, on to much more interesting subjects. I admit being a philistine and enjoying the BBC series 'Death in Paradise'. I think they have made a brave move recently to replace Kris Marshall as the inspector with Ardel O'Hanlan. He really was quite good but I keep expecting him to say "Why is that then, Ted?". But then again, I have got used to Danny John-Jules not being a cat :-)

I may be on briefly tomorrow but after that I may be out of internet range. Did I mention I am going to Ribblehead?

:DtG

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

Oh, and before you start going on about people going off topic remember this. It is your modus operandi to find any perceived weakness and dig and dig and dig at it until someone bleeds. You brought this on yourslef. You stated quite categorically I would be delighted to share my holiday stories, but in PMs. I get very annoyed when others start talking about such things on a discussion thread

Did you seriously not expect anyone to pick up on that in light of the tactics you use?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:07 PM

We love Death In Paradise. Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:11 PM

Next week's I think, Steve. Catherine is standing for Mayor and another candidate is stabbed to death. The trailer indicates that Catherine is a suspect.

Cheets

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM

Ah, right. I think I was topping up my glass when next week's trailer was on...🍷🍷🍷

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:28 PM

"Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?"
What happened?
Just watched it and Ardal O'Hanlon (Father Ted's Father Dougal) was the new detective
What am I doing with my life?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 07:50 PM

I'm discriminating when it comes to telly and I don't watch it much, but Death In Paradise is a very well-crafted bit of silly escapism. It's only once a week and I have to brace myself for Question Time. Escapism balanced against self-flagellation. Life can't all be a vale of tears,dammit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:34 AM

" is a very well-crafted bit of silly escapism"
How dare you - what did Matt Busby say about football!!!
(Joking really - much prefer that Castle and (sighhhhh) Beckett).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

It's a damn sight better than reading some of this crap, Jim :-)

Anyroads, still in the grips of man flu, or maybe maningitis, but by regular administration of appropriate drugs I am sure I can bravely soldier on with the weekend. The appropriate drug for this evening could well be something from Dent brewery.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM

Maningitis, you didn't catch that in Manningham Lane did you. Could be nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:22 AM

Rag and Steve, it must be hard for you not having anything genuine to criticise me for.
Sorry.
You have been trying for over two years to smear me for misquoting Wheatcroft, who supported my argument on WW1 completely, when the sad fact is that I quoted the disputed passage in full and you just missed it.

Now bollocks gate is another attempt to make something out of nothing.
Steve made a post using the expression "bollocks" five times, and I commented on it.
Anyone reading my post would have just read Steve's and known exactly what I meant. You pretend not to, because you have absolutely nothing else on me and no answer to my arguments.

How sad all this scheming to smear me must look.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM

Sad, Keith? I'll tell you what's sad!




No I won't...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

Dave, what is it you imagine I have brought on myself?
I am not aware of anything.

This is not about the issue, it is about you

People try to make it about me, but I keep to the issue.

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is. You started the contention.

Completely untrue Dave!
All the complaints and accusations came from within Labour. I just reported them here, and found great amusement in people here arguing that all those prominent Labour insiders were wrong and that they knew much more about it!!

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people. Your contention is that is is

Wrong again Dave. It was the contention of all those prominent Labour insiders, including the whole leadersip, that it is.
How can you possibly imagine that you know more about it?!!

I believe that antisemitism in the labour party is no worse than in any other group of people.
A belief based on what Dave? Preconception and prejudice, or just a whim?

The FACT is that such complaints have not emerged from any other party.
Just Labour.
The FACT is that the whole leadersip and numerous prominent insiders acknowledge that it IS a particular problem for Labour.
The FACT is that many also claim that nothing is being done about it.

Now, what are YOUR facts Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong.

We all know you want to "win" whatever the cost, however much you are, and are proved to be, dishonest and deceitful.

The only person you are fooling is yourself, and you're probably not even achieving that.

Now that is truly sad.

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

Rag,
The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong.

Quote the lie then Rag. The expression I referred to was "bollocks" not "lying bollocks" as you falsely claim.

I remember you faking quotes from historians. When I found the originals, you had edited them to reverse their meaning in a blatant attempted, lying deception.

I will take no lectures on the truth from a liar like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:59 AM

" I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such. I find your lies and evasions despicable" (15.2.17 09.21am)


Not the first time I have had to post this. Clearly "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" irrefutably "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression"

No doubt you will deny it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

Raggytash - 17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

"The saddest thing on here professor is your continued lying and your inability to accept you were in the wrong."

Only trouble with that Rag-arse for you and the rest of the "usual suspects" who have been "mobbing" Keith A now for over five years is that in flinging out these accusations of "lying" none of you have been able to come up with one single example of any lie he has told. Why is that Raggy?

This by the way will be yet another direct question that Raggy will fail to answer.

Looking through a number of current threads that have been hijacked by inane waffle and look at those participating (DtG, Shaw, Raggy, Jim) any claims by any of you of not acting in concert are patently meaningless and far from credible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

That should be easy for you shouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

It's not troll feeding time yest Raggy - don't spoil him; he'll come to expect it
"Dent brewery"
Did you hear the story of the Brewery Worker (never been able to take Dent's seriously) who fell into the vat and droned?
His wife was called to the scene and she asked, "did he die right away?"
"No", came the reply, "he climbed out for a piss three times".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:14 AM

Not much time before I go into the wilds but I shall just reiterate that once my point is made there is no need to keep repeating it. Unlike those who are so insecure that they need to go on and on and on and on and on and...

Pissing contest and skunk springs to mind again.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:16 AM

DtG........No one has denied it bobad.

Worse than denying it they blame it on Jews. I was going to say unbelievably they blame it on Jews but, judging from their posting history, it is quite believable. You're running with a bad pack Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

But the fact remains that no one has said that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. Which is what you suggested.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

Rag,
Not the first time I have had to post this. Clearly "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" irrefutably "lying bollocks to use Steve's expression"
No doubt you will deny it again.

Of course, because I know what I meant.
Perhaps I should have typed "lying "bollocks" to use Steve's expression" but it seemed unnecessary because anyone reading it would have just read Steve's post and known what I meant.
Any honest person that is.

You revealed yourself as capable of deliberate, unequivocal and despicable lying long ago. I have it bookmarked if you would like reminding.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 08:54 AM

Rag,
OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

I can answer that Rag!
He never has and no-one has ever claimed it.
It was his use of the expression "bollocks" that I referred to.
How many times do you need to be told Rag?

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

Dave,
I shall just reiterate that once my point is made there is no need to keep repeating it.

But your point is not made!
Your unsupported claim that Labour is no more anti-Semitic than other parties was knocked flat by the FACT that complaints have only come from within Labour, and the FACT that the leadership itself acknowledges the truth of it.

Your claim that Labour is at least addressing the problem is knocked flat by all those Labour insiders who say that nothing has been done.

We are still waiting for you to make your point with any fact at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:04 AM

"I can answer that Rag! He never has and no-one has ever claimed it."

No one except you professor, and you have denied time and time again that you claimed it despite it being here in black and white for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM

"Worse than denying it they blame it on Jews. "
Once again Bobad
Keith has suggested three times now that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to identify Labour antisemitsm in preference to defending their party
Care to show your support for the Jewish people by commenting
No?
Thought not
Jim Carroll

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

What Keith claimed on 16 December 2014 in the thread "I'm not an historian but....":

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

What Geoffrey Wheatcroft, an invited columnist (not "the Guardian," note), said in the Guardian on 9 December 2014 and what Keith was referring to:

That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

As you can plainly see, there was no remark made that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Keith not only said that that's what was said, he even put it in speech marks. He made it up. It wasn't true. Over two years on, he twists and turns but refuses to acknowledge that he told a porkie. An "oops, sorry" in his next post would have cleared it up. Had I not chased him up on this in subsequent posts, the lie would have stood, unremarked on. That's what people like Keith hope will happen. When they twist the facts (lie) in order to make a better case for themselves, they don't like to be challenged. Akenaton has recently told a lie in another thread about how his views generated threads with many thousands of posts. He was hoping no-one would challenge that. These people must think that the rest of us are idiots. Well we are not, and we shouldn't let them get away with such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM

Rag,
No one except you professor, and you have denied time and time again that you claimed it despite it being here in black and white for all to see.

It is not.
I referred to the expression "bollocks" which had just been repeatedly used by Steve, not "lying bollocks" which had not.
How many times do you need that explained to you Rag?

Jim,
Keith has suggested three times now that the Jewish members of Parliament have refused to identify Labour antisemitsm in preference to defending their party

Unlike you Jim, I have not suggested anything so ludicrous even once.
Repeating the lie does not make it anything but a lie Jim.

Steve, I had already quoted the passage in full.
No need to repeat the whole thing every time I referred to it.
There was no deception. I had quoted in full.
Wheatcroft was on my side against you. No need for me to misquote him.

And, over two years later, that is all you have on me and it is nothing.

Why not just discuss the issues instead of forever trying to smear the opponent?
Because you can't!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM

Read your own posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM

You misquoted him. I've just proved it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 01:55 PM

I've scoured that thread again and I can't find a post before I challenged you on 16 December 2014 in which you had "already quoted the passage in full." The only prior reference I found was:

Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in th Guardian this week.

As far as I can see, had I not challenged you on the 16th you would not have been forced to quote the passage (which you didn't really need to do - God knows how many times I've posted it for you, including once today). The lie would have stood forever.

The simple fact remains that you said the Guardian had called Taylor fraudulent. It did not. You lied. And you won't admit it. All this demonstrates that you simply can't be trusted to be truthful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

It is all written down here for ALL to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:28 PM

You may also wish to note that when I asked your stalwart supporter, Teribus, to quote where Steve had used that expression he has not answered.

I posed that question over 5 hours ago, he has not responded. Although he has posted to other threads on 7 different occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM

Tag team rules is it Raggy?

Keith A is holding his own very nicely thank you very much. You want me to comment on something then make damn certain that it actually did happen. But however if you want to know if Keith A ever said that Steve had used the expression "lying bollocks" - pity to inform you but he never did. He did on the other hand comment on the five mentions of the word bollocks used by Shaw and then taken up like a baton in a relay race by the rest of your tag team. As a tag team you all lie rather a lot, you also misrepresent outrageously Shaw has just been caught doing so on another thread.

Here's the whole exchange:

Steve Shaw - 15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

As we all know, many people on Mudcat talk bollocks. But now Raggytash and I are delighting, when exchanging notes on orchids, in talking literal bollocks. Very amusing! Well I think so anyway! The only people who disagree are those who talk the other kind of bollocks. They must think they have a monopoly on bollocks. Well bollocks to 'em, say I!

Here is Keith's response to Jim Cottall:

Keith A of Hertford - 15 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Jim, you accused me of making, "Probably the most antisemitic statement made of this forum."

I have shown that to be lying bollocks, to use Steve's expression, and you are unable to respond. You can only prattle on about flowers and such.

I find your lies and evasions despicable.

We have had real anti-Semitic posts from you. Would you like to be reminded?

Now then Raggy if you want examples of Jim's lying bollocks posted on this forum since 2007 ?????

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:10 PM

You are not prepared to answer a direct question as posed earlier.

Did Steve use the expression "lying bollocks" which is the source of this particular contretemps or is the professor lying.

It is either one or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 03:41 PM

Oh a "contretemps" is it Raggy? And here's me just thinking the "Usual Suspects" are just up to their old tricks "mobbing" Keith, like the bunch of Trolls that you undoubtedly are.

Who said that Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"? Keith A certainly DID NOT. So far only Shaw and you Raggy have claimed that he did.

In his response to Jim's inaccurate (As ever) and unsubstantiated (As always) accusation of making anti-Semitic remarks Keith A pointed out to Jim that he was lying and talking bollocks, ("to use the expression Steve Shaw had used five times two posts prior to Keith A addressing Jim Carroll). Jim Carroll by the way talks a great deal of bollocks on a vast array of subjects on this forum. In fact on that subject you Raggy are possibly his nearest rival in the talking bollocks stakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM

Good grief, look back at the professors post from 09.21 am on the 15th February.

Are you saying he didn't post this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM

My apologies. The professors post was at 09.01 on the 15th not quiet the time I posted earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM

Well Raggy, I must have read it because I copied it in it's entirety in my own post of 17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM.

Bollocks WAS the expression Shaw used wasn't it? - It is plain enough to me that in his post of 09:01 Keith A is accusing Jim Carroll of spouting lying bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:46 PM

The professor posted "I have shown that to be lying bollocks to use Steve's expression" at 09.01am on the 15th.

Which part of this can you not comprehend, is it really that difficult for you.

Steve has not used that expression, the professor was incorrect to attribute the expression to him.

For 2 days he has lied, prevaricated, twisted, squirmed and lied some more when the simple solution would have been to withraw the comment.

However the professor can NEVER admit that he has made an error can he.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:54 PM

He's lied for TWO YEARS about the Guardian piece. You have a long fight ahead of you, Raggytash. In its way it's a trivial matter. But it doesn't half expose the man for the disreputable bugger he really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM

I really do think that when a dissuccion has reduced to "lying bollocks" and "Jom Carroll", it's had its day
Totally mindless
Life really is to short lads, you really are better than that
Leave these people to drown in their own swill - life really is too short
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM

Rag,
You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

I did nopt specify both expressions.
The expression I referred to was "bollocks" which was obvious to everyone at the time because Steve had just used it five times in one short post.
(Obvious to any honest person, who was not just seeking another smear to use.)

Steve,
I've scoured that thread again and I can't find a post before I challenged you on 16 December 2014 in which you had "already quoted the passage in full."

Dishonest Steve.
As you know it was in a parallel thread with all the same contributors including you.
If you had really "scoured that thread" you would have seen me point that out many times.

The FACT is that Wheatcroft rubbished both texts, whichever words he used and I did quote him in full.
The FACT is that in rubbishing those texts he rubbished your position and upheld mine.
The FACT is that you were just using that one word as a ploy to divert a thread that you were losing, exactly as you are trying to do again now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:13 AM

still lying about it I see, despite the truth being there for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:16 AM

Well the reality of the situation is Jim that if you and your pals didn't post such "contentious, ill-informed and idiotic" bollocks, to use Steve's expression (Please note the expression of Steve's that I am referring to here is the word Bollocks - the "contentious, ill-informed and idiotic" bollocks is my opinion of what you post) Then I for one would hardly ever post at all - to check that out take a look at my posting record with regard to:

(a) Length of time I have been a member
(b) Number of posts I have made (Far, far less than you and rest of the "usual suspects")
(c) Number of posts that I have initiated. ( Less than the fingers on one hand IIRC in 17 years)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM

Back to discussing the Labour Party.
The Independent 9 days ago,

"Former Labour parliamentary candidate(and current councillor) accused of anti-Semitism after retweeting a far-right meme"

"It suggested that Israel controlled both houses in the US House of Representatives and that the country, along with the Rothschild family, had taken over the world. 
He later apologised, saying he did not realise the user, Tinnelle88, was spreading far-right hate speech and conspiracy theories. But he had not deleted it at the time of publication."

"They (the Rothschilds) have since been the target of many unfounded conspiracy theories – many of which are anti-Semitic in nature. 
Mr Clarke's comments have reignited the controversy over anti-Semitism within the Labour party which has plagued leader Jeremy Corbyn over the past year.
The party was forced to confront a series of incidents last year including remarks made by members on Twitter and at public meetings."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-claims-candidate-fair-right-twitter-meme-a7570181.html

Huff. Post 12 hours ago on resignation of Simon Fletcher,

"But another Labour source told HuffPost UK: "Having got Corbyn elected in the first place he has reaped what he sowed.
"It's clear team Corbyn won't listen to anyone with a track record of delivery now. The last person to have masterminded a vote winning campaign has left the building."
"Simon made the hard left electable with Ken, clearly Corbyn was a bridge too far. Vaguely talented man realises very late in the day he's only ever worked for congenital idiots."
Another Labour insider said: "Don't forget that Simon Fletcher was a member of a Socialist Action, a Trotskyist group. When they are considered too moderate, it sends a really powerful message to everyone else that this isn't even a group that is willing to co-operate with other Trotskyist groups." "
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/more-pain-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-simon-fletcher-quits-as-campaign-chief_uk_58a7102ce4b07602a

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:43 AM

Well the reality of the situation is Jim"
No - the reality is if you didn't persist in talking down to people and insulting everybody who disagreed with you these threads would be far more useful and pleasant to be part of
Between you and your arrogance and Keith and his serial obsessive dishonesty, you've managed to turn this forum into a swamp
How about packing it in - the pair of you and behaving like adult human beings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

Nonetheless Keith, you lied in your teeth then and you're still at it now. Absolutely bang to rights. Trivial enough in the overall scheme of things, but the episode speaks volumes about your character failings. All you had to do was admit that you'd got it wrong. Teribus does that, Jim does that, I do that, Raggytash does that, Dave does that and bobad does that. I've provided enough here to show how you got it wrong, and the place in the thread is accessible (date and time above) for anyone who wants to see your disreputable behaviour in full detail. When you are arguing or debating with someone, it's crucial to know exactly who you're arguing with. That whole sorry episode, and your refusal to put your hands in the air, tells me that I can't trust a single word you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

You really should verify your "facts" teri before you post.

Since 2002 when you first posted using the pseudonym Teribus you have posted on 8092 occasions.

Since 2001 when I first posted using the pseudonym Raggytash I have posted on 2884 occasions

Since 2001 when I first posted using the pseudonym Guest Raggytash I have posted on 3099 occasions.

2884 plus 3099 equals 5983, some 2109 posts fewer in a slightly longer time scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM

It ill-behoves you to draw attention to your posting history, Teribus. Bit of a drought above the line, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 12:36 PM

Of course there is a bit of a drought above the line Shaw. Threads above the line tend to be topic specific with less ill-informed, contentious, idiotic ideological bollocks, to use your own expression (Please note that the expression of Shaw's I am referring to is the word bollocks - the "ill-informed, contentious, idiotic ideological bollocks represents what I generally think of your contributions), so there is no need for intervention. Another feature in threads above the line is that there is none of the deliberate stalking and mobbing of contributors that goes on below the line. On the subject of traditional folk music in threads above the line I find myself generally in agreement with Jim Carroll, who when challenged to defend his views does so without the need for any supporting contributions.

Oddly enough Raggy I didn't bother looking you up as I regard you as more of "hanger on", compared to the rest of the crew but thank you very much for the correction.

Shaw - 14,425 member since 13th May, 2007
Carrol - 18,401 member since 6th December, 2007
Gnome - 16,088 member since 22nd June 2000

I'd look up Musket, but there were three of them which would skew the figures somewhat. Greg F. I simply do not bother with as he very rarely ever actually says anything (The noise he makes is like the music they play in a Lift {elevator for our American friends}). But I think you get the drift and general point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

I'm surprised that you actually know about the ethos above the line, as you hardly ever go there. Well, except to read, I suppose you'll be telling us. But rarely to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Steve,
Nonetheless Keith, you lied in your teeth then and you're still at it now.

No lies from me, now or then Steve.
Instead of always trying to smear, why not discuss the Labour Party as per the thread title?
Too humiliating?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:46 PM

Oh dear Shaw yet another thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle - Otherwise recognised as "Complete and utter" bollocks, to use your expression to divert everybody's attention ( Please note the expression of Shaw's that I am referring to is the word "Bollocks" - the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 02:43 AM

Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it...

What are the issues you'd like to address?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:17 AM

"Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it"
It appears he does have to Joe
It might be a good start if he addresses people in the name they chose
You suggested we did that quite a while ago - he is the only one to persist
It would remove some of the loutishness form his postings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:05 AM

Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM

"Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?"
I've just pointed out your own recently posted 'personal stuff' on another thread.
If you are going to indulge, don't whine when others follow suit
Your favourite "Muppet"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

Rather strange Joe that you do not find this (Addressed to Keith A) as being too personal - no resulting comment from you at all:

Steve Shaw - 18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.

What I posted was my honest opinion of what Shaw said.

Do I think Shaw posts "Complete and utter" Bollocks? - Yes I do, and I have now stated that opinion - an opinion on what Shaw has said - no personal remark or opinion of the man himself. I could have digressed to waffle on inanely about the first thing that came into my head, as Shaw and his pals have done, in an attempt to destroy the thread, but instead I responded directly to what had been posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:36 AM

"Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome."
Somewhat bland next to your years of persistent tirades of abuse, I thought
Want more examples - not really stared on it?
Latest examples
"Oh dear Shaw yet another thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle "
"the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun!"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:36 AM

According to Carroll:

Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion

Seems as though Jim and his pals are the only people entitled to opinions - How typically "socialist" of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 02:32 PM

We had a lovely weekend in Ribblehead. My man flu did affect the walk in that it took us 4 hours to do the 5 mile walk but, in some ways, that made it all the more enjoyable. As I stopped to catch my breath every 5 minutes, I had time to enjoy the scenery more! Didn't catch many flowers, sorry Steve, but it was lovely all the same. Saturday evening was a dream as well. Thanks for joining us Raggy and Raggywife. Maybe if more people did the same we would all be a lot happier :-)

Sad to see it is the same old bollocks on here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:04 PM

You won't get many flowers this time of the year, Dave. It's bloody grim oop north in Feb. Glad you enjoyed it. Sod the bollocks. Let's turn every annoying thread into fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:06 PM

"Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion"
According to Teribus
Torrent of abuse = par for the course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:54 PM

Hi Ram Ho! fur Donal John,
Wi aw his tanterwallops on,
An' may he niver lack a scone,
While he mak's hi'lan' whisky.......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:56 PM

OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

"OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim"
No problem Ake - gives me another opportunity to post this
Maybe you can get someone to read it to you when you sober up in the morning

Your support for this monster now reaches ' collaboration" proportions
One of his employees invented the "Bowling Green Massacre" that never took place, now he has announced a Terrorist attack in Sweden that never happened
He is made - his supporters are both sick and dishonest
I hope you have no kids to bequeath tha sick world you are going to leave them
You won't respond to this of course, Quisling hero that you are and I doubt if your mate Iain will either.
Doesn't seem part of your makeup
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:12 PM

you guys have been at this stuff a fair old time..........

the second world war had very little to recommend it, but at least there was a reasonably decisive outcome.
do you think maybe there will come a point where one bloke says - dammit you're right. you win! well done old man!
and the other bloke says, well done ! a fine effort!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:41 AM

Come on Al, I hardly ever abuse Jim, in fact I have commended him on quite a few occasions.
Jim's responses to me are almost always identical, a list of untruths and misrepresentations of my position.
The last post on this thread from Jim contains four direct and mean insults.....and that's very mild he missed out the racist, fascist, homophobe bit this time. In fact, I'm beginning to think he might not like me very much.....:0(

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:42 AM

We wish, Al. It keeps being pointed out that this is a debating forum. It isn't, it is a folk music forum and the BS section is for anything else. But, if it was a debating forum each side of the debate would have once chance to make claim, then counterclaim for each side and there would be a timed section for questions. There would then be a vote and a winner would be declared. Instead what we have here is a war of attrition where someone goes on and on and on and on and on until they think everyone has had enough and that makes them the winner. Sad really.

DtG

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

"It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference."
Whoops - your semantics are showing again
"The last post on this thread from Jim contains four direct and mean insults."
Not insults a summing up of your extremist and incredibly dishonest contribution.
You have just been given two examples of Trump's racist manipulation of an extremely volatile situation - once again you refuse to comment and will, no doubt, continue to support such behaviour with your silence.
Worthy of a fue harsh words in my book
This fuehrer is turning the world into a political minefield and is putting its future at risk
Happy to insult anybody who supports that.
My grandmother was once arrested for hitting Mosley with a stone - maybe she should have shaken his hand and bought him a pint.
You are what you are Ake, and until I'm proved wrong, I will continue to point it out
You may wish to appease evil - I don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM

bloody funny discussion.....its circular!

you keep calling each other names. if you really held each other in such contempt, you wouldn't give a shit what the other bloke was saying, because long ago ---you would have said to yourself....this bloke is an idiot, he's never going to say anything sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

There were lots of Snowdrops out at the weekend, in some area down Wensleydale in particular there were vast swaths of them. Serenely beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

so you say Jim, but i reckon if you felt about Ake the same way as your Granny felt about Mosley, your answers would be more terse.

Face it You guys need each other.
Why not find your feminine side and kiss and make up.

when you're both angels, i bet God will put you together on the same cloud for all eternity - making beautiful music together.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM

Won't work Al.

1.You cannot claim as FACT that God exists.

2.You cannot claim as FACT that Angels exists.

3. As far as I am aware Jim neither plays an instrument nor sings.

Bit of a bugger really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM

There were snowdrops laid in the form of a cross in Ingleton churchyard. Bit cheesy but very pretty.

So, it is a discussion forum? Why then do people keep telling us there are certain rules that we must all follow. That is formalising things which, to my mind, is a debate. A discussion is far more informal with none of the rules of debate that keep getting wheeled out. Also, as far as I know, a discussion has no winners of losers so where does the 'You lose' phrase come in I wonder?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM

Jim,
Your favourite "Muppet"

I think and believe that "Muppet" is a term of affection not abuse.
That is how I use it, but when you claimed to be offended by it, I stopped using it at once.
That was years ago now Jim.

If you are trying to suggest that it makes me guilty of using personal abuse, it does not.
It proves my innocence of it.

I am disappointed that Joe stepped in to protect Steve, surely one of the most personal and offensive posters here, but ignored all the personal abuse I have to endure from him and his little gang including you Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

The "little gang" is a figment of your imagination (or paranoia)

I have explained at length my involvement with other posters on this site.

If truth be known I have had more personal communication with Akenaton this year than I have with Jim, Steve, Greg etc. Does that make him part of the imaginary "little gang"

The exception to this is Dave whom I actually met on Saturday. (and no we did not discuss Mudcat, we played, sang and drank, very good it was too)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM

in heaven we'll all play beautifully and sing. and in the other place too.

take my word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

Rag,
How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

I refer to the fact that you all act in concert, for example in all suddenly talking about flowers to kill the current discussion.
You forgot to mention that you have actually met Steve too. You met with him in Cornwall I recall.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:50 AM

Yes I met Steve ........... last year. I have explained quite clearly my relationships with other posters on this forum.

However, if you read my post, I said that I had had more personal communication with Akenaton this year than with Jim, Steve, Greg etc.

The exception to this was Dave who I met on Saturday. I have no need to try and hide this from anyone.

That's because it is non of their business really.

So is Akenaton one of the imaginary "little gang"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

`"I refer to the fact that you all act in concert, "
If we "act in concert" that makes you, Ake, Bobad and Teribus another "gang"
or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"
There are people who don't know each other but whose views coincide
It is mindless twaddle to suggest there are gangs
Why don't you people grow up and behave like adults?
Rhetorical question - I know damn well why you don't - you've never left the schoolyard
And you wonder why you're the subject of so much abuse!!
You earn every word of it with your mindless behaviour and your serial lying
"I think and believe that "Muppet" is a term of affection not abuse."
You used it as a tem of abuse until you were pulled up on it - just as you did when you referred to us as "lefties" or "liars" or "ignoramouses"
You really don't have a truthful bone in your body, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM

Jim,
"lefties" or "liars" or "ignoramouses"

Leftie is a neutral term for people of the Left, often used by themselves.
I only call someone a liar in relation to a specific, identified lie.
I do not remember ever calling anyone an ignoramous.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:48 AM

Reinventing the dictionary yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 10:52 AM

"Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater."
And another jackboot tries to kick the door in - this time one that hasn't the bottle to condemn Keith's Jewish Pact of silence claims
The Jewish people need such heroes!!#
As I said Keith - not an honest bone in tyour body
"I do not remember ever calling anyone an ignoramous."
Selective amnesia
Why doin't you all go and burn a cross somewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

And isn't THAT rich coming from a Truth hater!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:06 PM

Raggytash - 20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

The "little gang" is a figment of your imagination (or paranoia)

Want to examine the indications Raggy?

Should Keith A post on any thread this "little gang" somehow feel what appears to be compulsion to respond and all those responses are in lock-step. Incapable of refuting points introduced to challenge their arguments they dredge up inconsistencies going back years.

So Raggy out of this "little gang" you have actually met and know either two or three of them. The volume of your correspondence by PM with Akenaton does not mean anything, and you know it.

Bit different from me Raggy, I do not know, nor have I ever met any of the "little gang" Carroll thinks exists and thinks I am part of. On many threads that you and your "little gang" post to you will not get a single post from me, you might get contributions but not in the same lock-step fashion of your "little gang".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:23 PM

My word aren't you paranoid.

I have stated quite clearly I have met Steve ONCE, for about 2 or 3 hours a YEAR ago. We must have spent all of 5 minutes talking about Mudcat.

Dave I have met 6 or 7 times, the latest being on Saturday when we mentioned Mudcat for a least 1 minute.

The remainder of your imaginary "little gang" and it is imaginary, I have never met and am unlikely too.

You really are very insecure aren't you. Have you checked for reds under the bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

I have never met and am unlikely too.

You have a property in Ireland within reach of Jim.
He has suggested you call in.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:10 PM

Want to examine the indications Raggy?
Teribus, Keith, Ake Bobad - one farts, the other three stink
'The Fucked Up Four'
Don't be so frigging childish Terebus - if we have a gang, so do you.
When are you people going to debate like adults?
Stupid - stupid - stupid!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:18 PM

Just look at the posting pattern folks - you lot follow each other through threads like a flock of sheep.

Oh I asked Carroll about this "insecurity" thing, that coincidentally you could explain how and why a few of you have latched onto as a mantra-like phrase recently - needless to say, Carroll didn't respond - so let me ask you the same question, what is it I am supposed to be "insecure" about? You clowns? Hardly, I've been running circles round the lot of you for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:20 PM

Professor, I have a property in England. Are you and I likely to meet up.

Logic is not your strong point is it.

If anything I HAVE invited you out. I think I said I would buy you a meal and a few pints. I have not extended that invitation to Jim.

No offence Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

"you lot follow each other through threads like a flock of sheep."
Mindless prick - get a life
"why a few of you have latched onto as a mantra-like phrase recently"
you nean like "made up shit" has
You stupid, stupid little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

But Raggy didn't Jim invite you down to Friel's for a pint not so long ago? Don't tell me you stood him up!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM

I've just asked the Nuclear Subs thread to be closed, but it's worth mentioning in relation to "gangs" - it only takes Keith to go into one of his Islamophobic rants about "implants" and it has set Teribus goose-stepping on the same theme as if somebody flicked a switch
Hope you all put on your best Black shirt!"
You are a sick joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:14 PM

Not that I recall, he may have done but as I have no idea where Friels or Jim are located it would be meaningless.

You do seem to be clutching at straws a great deal lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM

Oh dear Jim, you've asked for the thread to be closed. Why is that? Because you have nothing to contribute on topic or off it?

As for your last couple of posts, you certainly cannot complain about "Tirades of abuse".

Still no clue about this supposed "insecurity" of mine then Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

"Why is that? "
Because there is no room for your racist shite
We have enough problems with it from Keith
"Tirades of abuse".
There's a big difference between incitement to race hatred and slagging each other off
Guess which one gets petrol poured through letterboxes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM

By the way
All bullies are insecure - that's why you try to shout people down
I used to believe it was an inferiority complex, but now I think is that bullies are inferior
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:45 PM

I have a rule regarding personal messages,
No matter how abusive they may be, I never divulge the content and try never to mention them on open forum......But since Raggytash has brought these messages into the thread I think it is in order that I clarify that they had absolutely nothing to do with the forum or the behaviour of "the thread abusing gang" (you know who you are)or any other member.
We exchanged two PM's on a matter concerning an area of Ireland quite civilly.
I want to go on record as saying that the abuse of Keith is deplorable
If there is any blame to apportion it should be to Jim, Dave, and Steve.....and Raggytash, I am disappointed that our conversation was used in such a way, I had thought better of you.

Please stop this childishness It does your cause no good at all and makes you look crass and stupid.
You say Teribus is aggressive, but he is simply responding to your abysmal behaviour, both he and Keith are decent people, kind and helpful...your agenda rules you minds you hate people you have never met over a political ideology.....Time to grow up

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:12 PM

While I'm on the subject Jim you are a real bully, you do not even attempt to make points any longer, each successive post has become a mad rant....I don't know why your labelling of members in the most disgusting of ways is allowed, it is certainly not to make a point or further the discussion, more of a bully-boy tactic in an attempt to intimidate.

Fortunately those who read you can easily discern what manner of a "man" you are, as far as I can see you have no redeeming features whatsoever. Dave and Steve are perhaps worse if that is possible, as they are manipulators releasing their spite through the strings of their puppets. They do not even believe the nonsense they promote, it has become a weird unhealthy game.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:36 PM

Apart from it being another example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" what is the manifestation of my so-called "racism"?

So far I have only faithfully transcribed official reports - nothing actually from me at all, just boring old facts uncovered during police investigations that resulted in successful convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:28 PM

Akenaton I am disappointed with your post.

I was using our, albeit brief, private communication to illustrate the idiocy of presuming there was a "little gang" operating of which I was deemed to be a member.

You, I hope, will realise no such "little gang" does or ever has existed.

If other posters on here agree with something I have posted it is purely down to the fact that, on that particular subject, they agree with my sentiments.

We do not meet on a Friday night down at the pub to discuss what each of us may, or may not post.

To suggest otherwise is paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM

The logic of 'little gang' according to Keith, or was it Teribus, I forget, is that we all act 'in accord'. The same is true for Keith, Teribus, Akenaton and Bobad. It is also true that all those mentioned are included in the term coined by Joe are also 'the usual suspects' although that seems to have escaped the notice of some.

Yes, i did meet Raggy last Saturday and we did mention mudcat although his estimate of 1 minute is quite high. If I remember rightly is was,

"*** really is a complete idiot isn't he?"
"Yes"
"How does he think he can get away with it?"
"I don't know but he isn't worth even talking about"

Maybe 15 seconds.

I have never met Steve or Jim but if I did I would be proud to shake their hands. I have PMd at least 2 of the others and had my offer of friendship thrown back in my face.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:23 AM

"Apart from it being another example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" what is the manifestation of my so-called "racism"?
Your racism has gone viral on the Nuclear Subs thread where you are attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles
You have in the past described the Irish as a moronic race who have only opposed British rule because they were persuaded to do so by the French.
Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women - you have supported him in that claim - his still persists in that sick claim.
He has also suggested that all Irish children have been brainwashed to hate Britain, broviding no description of how that "hatred" manifests itself.
Racism and cultural intolerance in both of you appears to ooze from your every pore.
Now, tell me - what "shit" have I "made up" - is this not a description of your extremist behaviour?
By the way - no police report or official survey has ever at any time has ever linked the Islamic religion with sexual deviation of any kind in Britain.
That is a figment of Keith's hate-filled invention which you are defending with your "facts".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

You specifically asked me for this so here it is:

"Your racism has gone viral on the Nuclear Subs thread where you are attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles" - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Where in the thread mentioned am I - "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles? - What I have done is detail the convictions of eleven gangs, in eleven different cities in the UK where those gangs consisted predominantly of members who came from British-Pakistani backgrounds. Those are hard facts Carroll - I am merely pointing them out to you, I am not trying to prove anything to you, or anybody else. So for you to state that I am "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles is classic Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" and a downright lie.

"You have in the past described the Irish as a moronic race who have only opposed British rule because they were persuaded to do so by the French." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Give me the post of mine where I said that. I believe that in refuting the myth that ancient Ireland was some sort of idyllic, united country completely at peace with itself prior to the arrival of the Normans I stated that it was far from it and that the so-called leaders of rebellions in Ireland from the 12th century right up until 1798 fought solely for their own advancement with the aid and at the instigation of a foreign power who just happened to be at war with England/Great Britain at the time. That statement happens to be factually correct and is borne out by recorded history in Ireland, Britain, France and Spain.

"Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women - you have supported him in that claim - his still persists in that sick claim." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

Keith A has stated no such thing - He has quoted others, all members of Britain's Muslim community, who have made those suggestions - Only you and your pals deliberately chose to apply their suggestion and attribute it quite wrongly to Keith A. In addition to the three persons Keith A quoted, three of the investigations into the horrendous sex crimes perpetrated against vulnerable young girls in the eleven instances detailed voiced concerns regarding the "cultural" backgrounds of the offenders and how reluctance by the authorities due to "political correctness" allowed those gangs to operate so freely for so long. Now those people made those remarks and drew those conclusions, not Keith A and not myself. Keith A subsequently stated that given the evidence put forward by those people he believed that there was something in it. In other words he was giving an honest opinion of how he saw things based on evidence. Instead of challenging that evidence you simply chose to attack Keith A in a most deplorable fashion.

"He has also suggested that all Irish children have been brainwashed to hate Britain, broviding no description of how that "hatred" manifests itself." - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"

No he didn't. Again you take the words of others quoted by Keith A and then attribute them to Keith. Irish historians have claimed and proven that from 1922 onwards until the Second World War the teaching of History in Ireland was slanted and biased towards a blame culture that was aimed at blaming everything that was wrong in Ireland on the English/British and that was drummed into the children attending schools in the Republic of Ireland. To substantiate this you were given the direct quotes and references from the historians, you were directed to YouTube Documentaries of the 1950s IRA border campaign where "volunteers" openly admitted that the reason they fought was due to the indoctrination they had received at school as children - you ignored the lot, never bothered watching anything, never even acknowledged the existence of that material.

If you wish to cover any of the above to a greater degree Carroll - open separate specific threads that discuss those points and those points only. It might, just might put an end to the stream of "Made-Up-Shit" once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
Keith (one of your 'Fucked-Up-Four'), has suggested that all Pakistani Muslims are implanted with a cultural tendency to rape under-age women

Untrue.
We are all "implanted" (not my word) to some extent by our culture, and I quoted people who know and understand that culture stating that the culture led to the abuse.

I would not know, but why would anyone, apart from racists, dismiss their view?
Why do you dismiss it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessed men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

" "attempting to prove that the Muslims of Britain are all potential Paedophiles? - "
Keith has made such a claim - you are backing him
Whay else would you bombard this thread with the actions of a minute handful of criiminals who just happen to come from a Muslim background
Your arguments are inseperable from those of Keith - both life members of 'The Fucked-Up Four'
That hard fact are that you are attempting to use the activities of a few hundred criminals to to back up Keith's claim of a cultural "implant" - (his words - nobody else's) in an entire cultural group
You claim on Ireland his historical and racist nonsense
Ireland has opposed outside rule for eight centuries - no outside encouragement needed
" He has quoted others, all members of Britain's Muslim community"#He has done no such thing and refuses to link to any quote he claims to have been made
He made it up himself by distorting what a former home secretary said and taking the opinions of a handful of totally unknown people and twisting them to say the exact opposite
No public person has ever claimed that "all male Pakistanis" are culturally implanted to rape children and have to resist that tendency
Had anybody ever done so, not only would they have been ejected from public life, but they would be facing charges under the incitement to race hatred laws
If Keith refuses to produce an example - why don't you prove me wrong and produce one yourself?
Keith not only said exactly what I claim he did about brainwashing Irish children - he did exactly the same as he did about Muslim Implants - took a historian out-of-context and distorted what she said.
Keith
If it is "racist" to reject what you claim a handful of Muslims said - how racist is it to reject the many thousands of Muslims who totally rejected the idea that being a Muslim does not make you a Paedophile?
The press was full of such rejections
You are a racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

Jim,
Keith has made such a claim

I have not, except in the sense that everyone is a potential anything.


Whay else would you bombard this thread with the actions of a minute handful of criiminals who just happen to come from a Muslim background

To show that there is a huge over-representation of one demographic in that specific crime.
That was the only claim I ever made.

Keith not only said exactly what I claim he did about brainwashing Irish children - he did exactly the same as he did about Muslim Implants -

No. Both claims were false, but why are we here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!
You sad, obsessed men.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"I have not, except in the sense that everyone is a potential anything."
Liar
You specified Male British Pakistanis and related it directly to paedophila
You can deny this till your teeth fall out, but your statement remains carved in stone
"To show that there is a huge over-representation"
No-one ever suggested a "huge" over-representation - that is your take on the statements
You cited Jack Straw, who put it down to "testosterone - fizzing" young people - you put it down to "a cultural implant" and then claimed Straw backed you up.
You lied in order to push your racist agenda
You have consitently claimed relatively unknown Muslims have backed you up in your "implant" claim, suggesting they were authorities, in fact they never suggested si=uch a racist scenario, nor could they and remain in their positions or not be prosecuted.
You have consistently refused to produce examples of their saying anything resembling your disgusting claim
You lied.
You suggeted Irish children had been brainwashed to hate Britain - your mate Ake has just confirmed that is what tyou said.
"Again you take the words of others quoted by Keith!"
No Irish historian has ever made such a claim - you took what Christine Kineally said, took it out of context and grossly distorted it.
At no time have you ever been able to describe how thaat "hatred for Britain" has ever manifested itself in Irish children, just as you have never been able to either qualify or quantify Labour so-called "antisemitism"
You are a racist mess
Go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

You specified Male British Pakistanis and related it directly to paedophila

No. I claimed only an over-representation in that one specific crime, not paedophilia.
I had no view on why there was an over-representation.

Asked what I believed, I said I believed it was cultural "but only because of the testimony of all those......"

We are all "implanted" to some extent by our culture, though "implanted" was not my choice of word.

I made literally thousands of posts to that thread, but you single out one because you can misrepresent its meaning.
The other thousands make a liar of you Jim.

relatively unknown Muslims have backed you up in your "implant" claim,

They were and are prominent members of that culture, and the most outspoken at the time on that crime and their community.

Now, why are you rehashing a thread from 2011 here?
If you could challenge what is put in this thread you would.
Instead you and Rag go back six years in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!
You sad, obsessed men.

If you are incapable of arguing on this thread subject, walk away or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM

No Irish historian has ever made such a claim -

Yes they have, and I quoted them doing it.

you took what Christine Kineally said, took it out of context and grossly distorted it.

Lie. I quoted in context and produced the whole article to show it in its original, intended context.
It was another historian who described it as "indoctrination" which is just another word for brainwashing.
I also quoted that in context and produced the whole article to show it in its original, intended context.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:22 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

And having writ moves on ...............

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

"I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one," I have always said specifically that it is not."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

Jim, you gave a misleading, partial quote from Jack Straw.
This is what he actually said,

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men ... who target vulnerable young white girls.
"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Straw called on the British Pakistani community to be "more open" about the issue. "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat.
"And because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped." "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

"Jim, you gave a misleading, partial quote from Jack Straw."
I most certainly did not - it is you who is misleading
The article you quote from concerns 50 Muslim men out of 56 convicted, from which you use Straw back your "implant" claim - 50 out of a population of 1.5 million = a paedophilia implant - give us a break!
You carefully didn't link to your quote because it contains a great deal of opposition to Straw "controversial" statement, from the British judiciary involved in trying those 50 men and from British Muslims (making, you a racist, by your own logic, for taking the oinions of less than half-a-dozen people, rather than that of thousands of Muslims)
This is exactly what Straw said.
"'These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:22 PM

"Ireland has opposed outside rule for eight centuries" - Jim Carroll

Really Jim? What fairy story did you get that from? For much of that time the island was peaceful. Those who caused trouble were usually Irish nobles seeking to line their own pockets and settle old scores, and they tended to do that with the help of the Spanish or the French.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM

Ah the Empire line again ...............

Do you think that the population of the Channel Islands embraced the Germans who took control of those islands in the 40's.

Would you respect them if they had?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:11 PM

"These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat." - Jack Straw

A couple of stories for you related to the above:

1: Bus journey in Derby in the late 1960s with my father-in-law. A group of six quite boisterous youngsters, all male, who I took to be of either Indian or Pakistani descent were on the bus. as female passengers got on and off the bus their was a constant stream of conversation within this group. after a while my father-in-law got up from his seat and went up to them and spoke to them in flawless Urdu telling them that he knew where they lived (Of course he didn't, but they weren't to know that) and that their parents would be ashamed of them if it was reported to them what they had been saying about the female passengers on the bus. He then told them exactly what he thought of them, using the terms that they themselves had used in insulting the passengers on the bus. That is when I learned that from his time in India and Burma with the Army during the Second World War he had learned to speak Urdu, Pashtu, Hindi and Nepali - all fluently. I had never seen such a shocked look on the faces of complete and utter strangers in my life and from that moment onwards they were totally silent. Their view of "western women" was exactly as Jack Straw described.

2: In an Pakistani owned Indian Restaurant on the south coast in the mid-1980s with a friend of mine who had been born in Bombay, worked in India pre-partition in Karachi and then firstly in East and then in West Africa, and was now retired. We were half way through our meal when he asked the waiter serving us to get the owner, who came over. My friend then asked the man to call three of the waiters over. He then proceeded again in perfect Urdu to tell the owner how these three men had been referring to the his female diners during their service. He also told the owner that if he did not reprimand them there and then in the restaurant he would report the matter to the police. The reprimand was given and at least three tables in the restaurant that night got a big surprise when they found out that their meals were strangely "on-the-house". The views of those waiters on "western women" was exactly as Jack Straw described.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:25 PM

Spent the day ferrying people and things between the Aire Valley and Haworth. Two of the loveliest places you could visit and, smack between them, the town of Keighley with its high Muslim population. All of whom I am sure would not recognise the description Keith and his sychophants put forward. Don't get me wrong, there are Muslim prats there as well as Christian prats. Mostly to do with young blokes flexing their muscles in suped up hot hatches. But they are far less threatening than walking the streets of Salford at throwing out time on a Saturday night.

Not a lot to do with the Labour party either way so I guess that no one would object if I mentioned the sign I saw over a door in am old Mill just outside Keighley today saying 'Work Peoples Entrance'. Made me smile and reflect that we have come a long way. Sad that so many want to drag us back there :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:50 PM

Talk of bad behaviour, at Odsall in Salford, back in the 70's when I occasionally frequented the area, the Alsatians went round in three's.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

"I saw over a door in am old Mill just outside Keighley today saying 'Work Peoples Entrance'. Made me smile and reflect that we have come a long way. Sad that so many want to drag us back there :-(

Aw Gnome don't speak about Jeremy in that way - you might get reported

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM

Well in my time I've mixed it with the best and worst of 'em. I've seen sexist, misogynistic, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, get yer tits out, drop 'em blossom, threatening slagging-off of women from plenty of white men. The trouble with your little anecdotes, Teribus, doubtless cleaned up a little for the telling, is that they don't tell one tenth of the story of what really goes on from boardroom to rugby changing room to sixth-form classroom to pub to workplace to back-street hangouts. You'll hear all those views on "western women" (for chrissake!!) in all those places. Oh, and probably on board those ships you sailed the oceans on. From black, white, yellow, Christians, Muslims, Jews and none of the above. The world over. So God knows what you're trying to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:52 PM

i'm so glad Keith's father in law stuck his hooter in using perfect urdu.

would you do the samr if you heard a white lad saying - that one shags like a rattlesnake.

its the sort of thing virginal young men have been saying since Adam felt his figleaf wobble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:55 PM

More than wobble, Al. Turn into a tabletop to put his pint on, more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:15 PM

Al, it wasn't Keiths father in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:36 PM

It might have been, though, Raggytash. Think of it as an alternative fact! Anyway, Keith and Teribus are nobbut two cheeks o't'same arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:55 PM

My apologies Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 01:55 AM

" The trouble with your little anecdotes, Teribus, doubtless cleaned up a little for the telling, is that they don't tell one tenth of the story of what really goes on from boardroom to rugby changing room to sixth-form classroom to pub to workplace to back-street hangouts. You'll hear all those views on "western women" (for chrissake!!) in all those places. Oh, and probably on board those ships you sailed the oceans on." - Shaw

Well let's see Shaw, what were the comments you said you'd hear again:

"I've seen sexist, misogynistic, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, get yer tits out, drop 'em blossom, threatening slagging-off of women from plenty of white men."

In boardrooms? From that it can be plainly seen that you've never sat in a boardroom in your life.

Rugby changing rooms? Not accessible to the general public and not frequented generally by women going about their normal daily lives.

Sixth form classroom? Just shows you what a piss poor teacher you must have been then Shaw.

The Pub and back street hang-outs? Are they known for being busy thoroughfares Shaw?

In ships? My time at sea there were no women at sea.

You are saying that this sort of behaviour is normal - the "sexist, misogynistic, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, get yer tits out, drop 'em blossom, threatening slagging-off of women" - in which case you have no objection, as Jim Carroll apparently has, to the reported, candid, off the record "locker room" remarks previously made way back in time by the current President of the United States of America.

The trouble with your understanding of my little anecdotes Shaw was that both locations were very public, the remarks were made loudly in a foreign tongue that those speaking it made the mistake of thinking nobody would understand. I have never encountered anything similar to what you describe in a public place with women present by anyone using the English language. If you have then as the old saying goes, "You can always judge a man by the company he keeps" - And the pig got up and slowly walked away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 03:50 AM

"Really Jim? What fairy story did you get that from? "
Oh - for fuck's sake - you arrogant shit
Really Jim? What fairy story did you get that from?
Violence has been part of Irish life throughout English rule - your unqualified denials have become mindlessly boring.
Your pathetic Islamophopbic anecdotes are just that - pathetic.
I worked for Muslim customers for over twenty years and at no time did I meet with a single piece of abuse or even bad manners - not once.
Many of them became friends, as a visiting tradesman, they rgularly fed me and provided intelligent and entertaining company whenever we found time to talk
I felt far easier discussing my atheism with them than I did with many of my English customers.
I have never met a group of people as tolerant as they were, quiet and respectful to me, to their neigbours, and even tolerant to the scum who poured shit through their letterboxes, or daubed their walls with obscene graffiti, or made their children's journey to school a gauntlet of hate.
When I read shitty litle urban legends like your I am always reminded of the old Giles cartoon in The Daily Express depicting wounded Notting Hill rioting thugs being greeted on the hospital steps by black doctors and nurse ready to treat their wounds.
It is white-superior people like you who think it funny to order a meal in an Indian restaurant, abuse the staff and smash the place up when they leave, who are the problem, not well behaved, intelligent and industrious Muslim guests of the nation.
Arrogance and aggression sometimes elicits a sharp response - you appear incapable of learning that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

Talk about missing the point. Misogynistic talk happens in both the presence and absence of women. I was a sixth-former myself for two years and I was a sentient being at the time enjoying a reasonable memory. For rugby read football, cricket or any other male-oriented sport, clot. And, once again, you profess to know what my life experiences have been and you stand in judgement of my teaching career even though you have never met me nor seen me in action. Typical response from an uneducated ex-naval Dhobi wallah, I'd say (there, see how unpleasant assumptions based on prejudice can be?) You gave us two nicely-barbered little anecdotes. If you really want those to stand as blanket evidence of the attitude of certain non-white cultures to "western women," I'd say that makes you a.... finish it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM

I must say, Teribus, I think your comment of 21 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM was quite good. Humour is far better than bile. You should use it more often.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:57 AM

Jim,
they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan."

Straw links the offending (the grooming, raping and trafficking of vulnerable children, typically but not exclusively orphanage children) to the culture.

We had this discussion in 2011.
Why have you brought it back?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

Missed the point again Shaw. The line that was being peddled was that Jack Straw was talking rubbish

The "stories" represent personal experience that confirms that what Jack Straw stated about the Rotherham sex gang view of vulnerable children existed in the UK in the 1960s and the 1980s - so I recognise that for those British-Pakistani men who were tried and convicted just recently in ten British cities their fathers and their grandfathers held exactly the same views - "cultural implant" - nothing whatsoever to do with their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"The line that was being peddled was that Jack Straw was talking rubbish"
No - the being peddled was that Keith deliberately distorted it to fit his racist agenda.
Straw commented on what he believed to be an over-representation anmonfg certain communities, but went on to point out that many of the people concerned were behaving no differently than youths from other communities who indulged in underage sex.
I doubt of less than half of the pupils in the last two terms of my school hadn't had sex with someone of the same age - we had no Muslims in our school.
What Straw made as an opinion was taken up as a definitive statement and the outcry that followed was not in the actual statement but the fact that it was being taken out of context by people like Keith and Teribus to promote an Islamophobic hate agenda.
This pair continue that quest.
There is no documented evidence to suggest that the Muslim community is any more prone to underage sex than any other, in fact, the moral standards are are higher than those in Britain.
Those Muslims who were involved were misfits, not typical of their communities - Jack Straw was referring to 50 cases.
Both Teribus and Keith are now openly declared racists, which is what I was hoping to establish.
The former is stereotypical with his little Urban Legend anecdotes and his crude thuggishness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:53 AM

By the way
I knew numerous cases of fathers in white families who beat the shite out of their daughters when they learned they had black boyfriends and at least to occasions of a daughter being ejected from her home when she refused to end the relationship.
I knew Jewish families in Manchester who, progressive in their views as they were, violently opposed to mixed marriages in their families.
I wonder if this counts as "cultural implanting" in the sick minds of these bigots
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM

PPS
"Why have you brought it back?"
You know why I brought it back - you asked for evidence oif your extremism - I obliged
I take comfort from the fact that it will always be on hand whenever needed - a handy reference
Any examples of Keith's claimed quotes yet Teribus?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM

"There is no documented evidence to suggest that the Muslim community is any more prone to underage sex than any other" - Jim Carroll

Yet another deliberate misrepresentation Jim. But one you are not going to get away with.

Not just "underage sex" was it Jim? How many of your former school mates in their last two years at school were guilty of systematic and prolonged - abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children?

Jack Straw - 50 cases? 125 people so far have been arrested tried and convicted in eleven cities across England. Rotherham in 2010 kicked open a can of worms, some might say the tip of an iceberg. You may seek to trivialise the offences Carroll, I do not. You may seek to perpetuate the religion of adherence to "political correctness" that protected these bastards for years, I do not. In Rotherham there were at least 1,400 girls involved some of them for years tried to tell the Police and social services exactly what was going on. A totally idiotic fear of being considered "racist" and "Islamophobic" allowed the horrendous abuse to continue and extended the abuse that those girls suffered - and judging by your comments Jim had any of those girls come to you would have done no different.

You wanted quotes Jim:

Labour peer Lord Ahmed has called on mosque leaders in South Yorkshire to speak about the issues surrounding sex exploitation.

Mohammed Ali, chairman of the Pakistan and Muslim Centre in Sheffield, said: "The situation needs to be tackled. We can't hide behind it and say it will go away, that's not acceptable in any way shape or form.

"We've got the South Yorkshire mosques together and we've discussed individually and privately with the imams and with the committee members."

Lord Ahmed said he did not know THE REASON WHY ASIAN MEN WERE EXPLOITING YOUNG GIRLS.

Well hells teeth Jim, WTF would he know about it!! No doubt you know better than the man himself and tell him what he really was thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM

Teri

Abuse is not as you would have us believe purely confined to Asian men.

Read the link below, it is part of a long standing issue in the North Yorks Enquirer. The Police in this instance allegedly ignored intelligence over a prolong period of time.


http://nyenquirer.uk/jaconelli-savile-spanish-waiter-missing-murdered/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 10:57 AM

How many of your former school mates in their last two years at school were guilty of systematic and prolonged - abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children?"
And how many of those convicted were guilty of the same?
All of those crimes you mention are common to indigenous paedofiles as well as some of those convicted
Making these crimes "Muslim" is what makes you pair the racists you are
"Lord Ahmed said he did not know THE REASON WHY ASIAN MEN WERE EXPLOITING YOUNG GIRLS."
But you pair apparently do - do you know something he doesn't?
Jack Straw's comment referred to 50 cases - subsequent cases remain in the few hundreds
The Muslim population has a long way to go before it catches up with our own home-grown paedofiles
He was shouted down by protests from Muslims all over Britain - why is their word word less valid over the tiny handful that Keith produced?
Nobody has ever claimed "implants" or entire communities - that is the product of Keith's sick imagination
You are a sick pair of racists
Jim Carroll
A MORE UP-TO-DATE EXAMPLE
AND AGAIN
AND YET AGAIN

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 11:51 AM

Jim,
but went on to point out that many of the people concerned were behaving no differently than youths from other communities who indulged in underage sex.

No he did not.
He acknowledged the same urges but pointed out that culture limited the legitimate outlets for it, leading to the multiple raping and pimping of children.

There is no documented evidence to suggest that the Muslim community is any more prone to underage sex than any other,

No, and no-one has suggested it but it is an established fact that certain demographics are hugely over-represented in this specific crime.

Both Teribus and Keith are now openly declared racists,

I am sure I speak for both of us when I utterly refute that disgusting accusation.

Rag,
Abuse is not as you would have us believe purely confined to Asian men.

No one here would have you believe such an idiotic idea Rag.

Jim again,
Making these crimes "Muslim" is what makes you pair the racists you are

No-one has suggested that religion is an issue. I have specifically and repeatedly said that it is not. Why do you repeat that blatant lie Jim? Because the truth is your enemy in this crusade of yours.

"Lord Ahmed said he did not know THE REASON WHY ASIAN MEN WERE EXPLOITING YOUNG GIRLS."
But you pair apparently do - do you know something he doesn't?

In the original thread I quoted him ascribing it to the culture, especially to unhappy arranged marriages.

He was shouted down by protests from Muslims all over Britain

No he was not. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are as appalled by this as we are. You should be too.

Nobody has ever claimed "implants" or entire communities - that is the product of Keith's sick imagination

It is not my imagination that culture influences us all to some extent, and not my idea that culture is the issue here.
My only case is that there is an over-representation, not why.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 12:31 PM

"are hugely over-represented"
There is no suggestion of hugely over representation is yours - you have disgustingly made this up
How could such an accusation be made on only several hundred cases
You say you only believe this because somebody told you it was true - now you are going viral with your invention and confirming it is all your own work - as I said - you are an extremist
"I am sure I speak for both of us when I utterly refute that disgusting accusation."
I'm sure you do yet you have proved my point on this very posting
There is no link between paedofelia and culture - none whatever and whoever claims there is is a raving racist.
"No-one has suggested that religion is an issue."
""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency" MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency" "
What''s a Muslim - a breed of racehorse??
Once again you are claiming things you rfuse to either link us to or re-post
You pair are sick racists
Post your quotes and you will show you are telling the truth about others saying what you claim
But as you are still insisting this shit is true, you are compounding your racism
To claim you are not a racist on the same posting as you display your racism is beyond belief - but good fun - god forgive me!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM

I can't help but notice professor that you make absolutely no mention of abuse committed by white caucasian men as described on my link.

No surprise as it doesn't fit with your racist agenda does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:09 PM

There could be many reasons for over representation if that is indeed the case.

Some demographics are under far more scrutiny than others
The crimes of that demographic are more widely reported
It is politically expedient to target those who are perceived as a threat in other ways such as terrorism
The perpetrators in that demographic are not as wily as their counterparts in others
The demographic is question is under represented in political circles and do not have the power to cover things up like others

Why chose culturally implanted as the only possible reason I wonder?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:22 PM

"Abuse is not as you would have us believe purely confined to Asian men." - Raggy

OK Raggy point out where I have ever stated that. If you cannot do that by quoting in full the post where I am stated that the kindly STFU about it.

I quoted details of eleven instances where gangs were abducting, raping, torturing and sex trafficking children. The degree and extent of the crimes perpetrated by those gangs were no invention of either Keith A of Hertford, or myself. They were the findings of the police officers who finally got round to investigating those crimes and from evidence that came to light during the court cases that saw 125 men tried, found guilty, convicted and imprisoned.

Tell me Raggy what do you think was meant when those looking into those cases stated that "institutional political correctness" played a part in the delay in investigations and prosecutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:55 PM

Again like your co-author you make no reference to the case of white caucasian men in my link.

Doesn't fit your racist agenda does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM

Rag,
I can't help but notice professor that you make absolutely no mention of abuse committed by white caucasian men as described on my link.

I did in the original discussion, which you should read before pontificating and making accusations.
I acknowledged several times that overwhelmingly most convicted child sex offenders were white.

Jim,
There is no suggestion of hugely over representation is yours - you have disgustingly made this up

No. In the specific crime of street grooming of children there is a huge overrepresentation of one demographic whatever the reason.

Guardian 3 years ago, (It does not restrict itself to street grooming where the figures are much more clear cut.)

"Is there something about Asian Muslim men that leads to them being disproportionately involved in the grooming and sexual abuse of white girls?
The courts have dealt with a cluster of horrific cases including those in Rochdale, Derby and now Oxford.
Available figures are patchy and flawed, but on the face of it they do suggest Asian men are disproportionately involved in group grooming leading to sexual abuse, compared with their numbers in the national population. This impression is supported by several sources in law enforcement who spoke to the Guardian.

A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre looked at the 2,379 potential offenders caught grooming girls since 2008. Of 940 suspects whose race could be identified, 26% were Asian, 38% were white and 32% were recorded as unknown. Asians are roughly 7% of the population.
A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded. Attempts to analyse the Asian figure further runs into problems. Just 35 of the 415 Asians are recorded as having Pakistani heritage and thus highly likely to be Muslim, and only five are recorded as being from a Bangladeshi background. The heritage of 366 of the Asian group is not stated in those figures."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

Mohamed Shafiq, quoted by me in the original discussion, is chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation, a moderate Muslim group trying to foster better relationships with non-Muslims.

"Mr Shafiq profiles the offenders as Asian men, predominantly Pakistani, who want easy sex and are prepared to pay to abuse girls as young as 13.
Of 68 recent convictions for on-street grooming, 59 were of British Pakistani men.
"They have a respectable life in the community and then they have their night life.
"Asian girls are not available to them and so they look to Western girls. They think they're easy. They see them as tarts who are there to be used." "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

"The Muslim community, which was so long in denial about the acts committed by a few of its members, has begun to confront the problem. "We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men," says Mr Karmani.  But the problem is not confined to young Asian men. It is nothing to do with Muslim culture, he says,"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-oxford-child-sex-abuse-verdict-highlights-a-cultural-problem-but-not-a-specifically-muslim-one-8616370.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM

4:55PM BST 25 Jun 2015
A report detailing how gangs of Asian men in Birmingham were grooming school girls with alcohol and drugs was not made public after senior officers warned that such information could inflame racial tensions ahead of the 2010 General Election.
West Midlands Police were warned that more than 100 predominantly white school children - some as young as 13 - were at serious risk of child exploitation, with abusers approaching pupils at the school gates.
Police said they had identified 75 suspects, most boasting a history of sexual violence and most of whom came from the Pakistani community in Birmingham.
But they warned that making the information public could inflame racial tensions particularly ahead of the 2010 General Election, which was due to take place several weeks later.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11699179/Report-about-Asian-grooming-gangs-was-supressed-to-avoid-inflaming-racial-tension.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Daily Mirror 2014,
Anger at the sexual abuse of teenage girls by Pakistani grooming gangs is tearing a town apart with racial tension, a Sunday People investigation has revealed.
Multi-cutural Rotherham in South Yorkshire was rocked by a damning report this summer, which showed that 1,400 vulnerable youngsters have been targeted for sex since 1997.

Worryingly, we found hate crime has soared and mutual suspicion is rife since it was revealed the culprits were mainly British Asians.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-grooming-scandal-tearing-4508666

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM

Good job Jim and I take no notice!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:04 AM

Rag,
Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.

I have made no racist rant, and the rehashing of this nasty old subject was nothing to do with me.
I just defend myself from slanders like yours with facts and the truth.

Steve,
Good job Jim and I take no notice!

But I am responding to points made by you both.
Three members of the gang that does not exist, all hounding me over two posts both made years ago and which you refuse to see in their original intended context.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:07 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:21 AM

"the rehashing of this nasty old subject was nothing to do with me."
You asked for examples of your extremism - you got it - you don't like it
That will teach you not to ask
You brought the subject of cultural implants up in the first place, on the Muslim Prejudice thred - I agree with you entirely that it was a nasty thing to do.
"I have made no racist rant,"
It is a racist rant to describe an entire culture as implanted potention perverts
But I am responding to points made by you both."
With lies and denials and with a repeated insistence that your racist rant is true
Three members of the gang that does not exist, all hounding me over two posts both made years ago"
Which you have never withdrawn and are now defending as accurate - and blaming non-existent others for putting you up to it.
"two posts both made years ago""
I count five posts you have just put up dating back as far as 2011 attempting to prove that Muslims are implanted perverts
And you say you are not a racist!!!!!
THERE IS NO EXISTING PROOF THAT MUSLIM CIULTURE INCLINES MUSLIMS TO HAVING UNDERAGE SEX - ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE IS A RACIST - SIMPLE AS THAT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

Yes, I'll sort you out later over your Wheatcroft farrago when I have a minute. Gird your loins. It's not about past historical posts, Keith. It's about what kind of man you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:44 AM

Keith
Simple question regarding mathematics and logic
If only a few hundred Asian youths out of a population os One and a half million have been tried for underage sexual offence against young women, how can that possibly be described as a "massive over-representation"?
Are there more than this number that are being covered up?
Do you have any information on such a cover up
How do you know there are
Can you explain what you mean by "a massive over-representation"?
"massive over-representation" of what - the entire population, the population of Bradford, or wherever else these incidents have been found
Where are the figures for this "massive over-representation"
Failure to explain this anomaly makes you not only a racist, but a propagandist for racism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

Some facts and figures while you are considering your answer on "over-representation"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/11641096/Number-of-paedophiles-in-Britain-will-shock-public-warns-Deputy-Childrens-Commissioner-for-England.html
(can't blue clikie)

Some more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11630989/Child-sex-abuse-Police-guarded-paedophile-ring-claims-victim.html

More still
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11527344/Child-sex-abuse-victims-threaten-legal-action-over-inquiry.html

Yet more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11617789/Scale-of-child-sex-abuse-revealed-in-new-police-figures.html

Would this count as "over-representation" in your book?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

Jim,
You asked for examples of your extremism - you got it

I did not.
It is not extreme to believe that culture effects us all to some extent.
Most people believe that.

It is not extreme to point out that culture has been cited by highly credible people as the cause of the over-representation.

You have found nothing extreme in anything I have posted and never will.

THERE IS NO EXISTING PROOF THAT MUSLIM CIULTURE INCLINES MUSLIMS TO HAVING UNDERAGE SEX -

I agree. There is nothing in Islam that would do that.
Why do you mention such a ludicrous idea?

Steve,
It's about what kind of man you are.

Yes. You try to make every discussion about me.
You can not challenge what I say so you attack me personally.
You pathetic losers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM

Jim,
If only a few hundred Asian youths out of a population os One and a half million have been tried for underage sexual offence against young women, how can that possibly be described as a "massive over-representation"?

"Of 68 recent convictions for on-street grooming, 59 were of British Pakistani men. "

That is a massive over-representation of a demographic that is only about 2% of the population.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 08:10 AM

Where is that quote from, what does it specifically refer to.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

"Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said of the 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men, "so clearly we have got a problem when it comes to on-street grooming".
Shafiq said that a minority of Pakistani men thought white girls were worthless, a viewpoint he and he said the majority of the community found abhorrent."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/08/rochdale-child-sex-ring-case

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Isn't it fascinating how you can skew a discussion by only quoting a small section of an article.

The article that the professor quoted from also said:

"But the Police say the phenomenon is not restricted to any one race - the vast majority of those on the sex offenders register in Greater Manchester are white (95%)"

Thus the Black, Oriental and Asian population would seem to make up the other 5% of offenders.

Now the Asian population of Manchester is 6.5% so proportional they seem less likely to be involved in sex offences

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59
So your "massive over-representation" is 59 out of one and a half million
Fuck off Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:11 AM

Another interesting bit in the article, also overlooked by the professor:

"As the first verdicts came in, the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, tweeted about it, a potential contempt of court"

A fellow traveller with some of the posters on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

Jim, Pakistanis form less than 2% of the population but nearly 90% of these offenders.
That is a massive over-representation.

I have always acknowledged, even in that post you keep referring to, that "only a tiny minority" of that demographic are involved in this crime, but there is no question about them being massively over-represented in the offending.

Rag, I have only ever claimed over-representation in the specific crime of on-street grooming.
Quoting stats. for other crimes is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM

Another Guardian piece,

"This crime does have one very significant factor that has left me feeling deeply ashamed. The brutality and horror of these acts have nothing to do with me; they are as far removed from my life as the next person's. Yet I somehow feel responsible when I look at the names or faces of the perpetrators.
Why? Because a disproportionate number of them are British Pakistani – just like me."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM

"Jim, Pakistanis form less than 2% of the population but nearly 90% of these offenders."
Keith
These offenders number a few hundreds - do the math
Only an agendea driven racist could describe that as "a massive over-representation
I've actually traced the phrase to a book entitled "Easy Meat: Inside Britain's Grooming Gang Scandal Peter McLoughlin"
The author has links to a fascist publication named BREIBART NEWS in the U.S.
If that is where your information is coming from, you should be ashamed of yourself
"The brutality and horror of these acts have nothing to do with me;"
That is taken from your quote, yet you are claiming that ALL MALE PAKISTANIS have a cultural implant
Isn't he a Pakistani?
Is he lying about not having an implant?
Is he claiming a "massive over-representation?
What is the point of your putting up a quote that belies your claim - have you changed your mind?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Sorry - mistook the gender of the writer which is four years old
From your link
"It's important to stress at this juncture that the vast majority of sexual crimes against children in the UK are committed by white men and that this type of grooming is only a small percentage of those crimes. Of the 1.2 million Pakistanis in Britain only a tiny minority has any connection with such deplorable acts of sexual violence. I'm writing this carefully because I want it to be read carefully. These men may be British-Pakistani but that does not mean that this is a crime specific to British-Pakistani men."
Where is your "massive over-representation in that statement
You are now bending over backwards to prove that Muslim men are potential perverts by articles that are saying exactly the opposite
Go and have a cup of tea and come back when you have got your story straight
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Perhaps you'd care to read this request for information from the Minitry of Justice
Jim Carroll

Ministry of Justice
June 2014        
91212
Freedom of Information Request   
You requested the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
For future discussions and potential programme-making we would like to investigate reports that 60% of males in prison convicted of rape are Muslims. Please can you give us the proper stats for these?
Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and I can confirm that the MoJ holds information that you have asked for and it is provided below.
Sexual offences are traumatising crimes which ruin lives. Tough new sentences are available for those who commit these dreadful crimes - and under this Government sex offenders are more likely to go to prison and for longer. We recently introduced a new mandatory life sentence for people convicted of a second very serious sexual or violent crime and introduced tough new Extended Determinate Sentence which will ensure dangerous offenders spend long periods in prison and are supervised for long periods after their release.
As at 31 March 2014, the latest point in time for which data is available for public use, the male prison population in England and Wales for all offenders serving immediate custodial sentence for rape was 5,682. Of this, there were 676 offenders who self-declared their religion as Muslim (12% of the total).
Please note that the figures given relate to offenders for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were sentenced to immediate custody. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. As such offenders convicted of murder and rape at the same time are excluded from the figures. Also the data relates to prisoners' current self-declared religion, not any previously declared religion on reception into prison as prisoners are under no obligation to declare their religion.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM

Over representation or not, and I doubt if there is any such thing if we look at the statistics for a significant amount of time, there are still many reasons it could happen that I have detailed before. Why would anyone leap on the only one that casts the whole culture in a bad light I wonder?

Still, more important stuff than banging my head on a brick wall. Don't forget it is the last episode of the current Death in Paradise series tonight. Following the passing of Storm Doris and the unpleasantness on here of late it will be nice to have a bit of sunshine and breath of fresh air.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM

Jim,
If that is where your information is coming from, you should be ashamed of yourself

It is not.

That is taken from your quote, yet you are claiming that ALL MALE PAKISTANIS have a cultural implant

I made no such claim myself, and always acknowledged that the vast majority are unaffected.

Where is your "massive over-representation in that statement

I only claim it for the one, specific crime, so yoyr last post was also irrelevant.

Guardian,
"Because a disproportionate number of them are British Pakistani – just like me."
So there is an over-representation.
Guardian,
"of the 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men,"
So the over-representation is massive.

I was right and you are wrong.
You lose.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM

Dave, my case has only ever been the over-representation, which is very large now and has been since we discussed it in 2011.
I have no opinion on how it will develop in the future.

I do not know or care why it exists.
When I quoted that theory it was the only one around.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Your case was a cultural implant
Your "over-representation turns our to be 676 offenders out of one and a half million
They are the official figures - how do they add up to "a massive over-representation" entire racial group?
Where does your cultural implant theory stand now?
Is the Ministry of Justice lying?
You are a racist and have proven to be one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 03:09 PM

Just in case youu missed it Keith, the 676 convictions wee for sexual offences, not just for underage sex, but "rape", actual, statutory "consensual) so the figure for your Muslims who are "implanted" is quite likely to be at least the very most, of the overall figure.
Where is your "culturally implanted massive over- representation" underage sex now?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 03:21 PM

I thought you had taught Maths professor.

The Asian population of Manchester is 6.5% of the total.

95% of registered sex offenders are White thus the Asian men are UNDER represented.

They should at least form 6.5% of the registered sex offenders to be even on par with the white population

This is, not of course, not taking into amount the men of Afro-Caribbean and Oriental origin who would be included in the 5% of sex offenders who are not white.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM

It was not the only theory at all. There were all the others I mentioned and more besides. All of which you chose to ignore in favour of 'cultural implants'.

So, since 2011 eh? How about since 2001? Or 1991? Or before Muslims were demonized?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 03:57 AM

Jim,
Your case was a cultural implant

No. I just said I believed it, and only because of all those prominent testimonies.
It was never my opinion. I had none, except that there was an over-representation.

Rag, I have said nothing about sex offences in general, just that one specific crime, and I was right about it.

Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.
Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.
That prevailed until long after the thread closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.

Oh, what a surprise...

Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.

How about this one from The Guardian?

Some snippets for you

Figures suggest Asian men are disproportionately involved, but law enforcers and those in child protection say it's not so simple

...

A more credible link, says one senior source involved in bringing the criminals to justice, are their occupations. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the demography of certain areas and the makeup of the night-time economy explained the over-representation of Asian offenders.

...

Meanwhile, group grooming is a small part of the sexual abuse threat facing Britain's children. Some of those working in protecting children from sexual abuse worry that the wrong message is being given about who poses dangers to children from the media coverage of "Asian grooming gangs".

They say the biggest dangers are not just on the street, but online, and the totality of abuse shows far more white people are perpetrators



Plenty more there as well.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:38 AM

"No. I just said I believed it, "
You put it up - you have never produced anybody else saying it so it is your invention
It is an obscenely extreme racist suggestion
"It was never my opinion"
What a stupid lie after saying "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Are you mad?
You have been given the official figures for Muslims convicted of sex crimes yet you still insist that there is a "massive over-representation"
You are a sad, disturbed individual
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM

Raggytash - 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.

Tell me Raggy what was the subject of the thread that Jim Carroll harks back to 2011 and dredges up everytime he finds himself getting trounced on a thread with a completely non-related subject? Similarly what was the subject matter of the bone that Shaw has got firmly gripped in his teeth that causes him to hark back to 2014 to dredge up like Jom?

Then you find it strange that, to refute what is being said, the person subjected to these attacks goes back to those threads and that subject matter - what an utterly ridiculous comment to make.

Still it has clarified some points on both subjects:

1: Jim Carroll - "Muslim" Implant

Jim has always deliberately confused religion and culture. He thinks, incorrectly, that they are the same thing. They most certainly are not. His greatest secondary objection has been that he claimed that no sources were given and no names were supplied. Now we have:
- Comments by Jack Straw
- Guardian article from 2014
- A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
- Comments by Mohamed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html
- Comments by Mr Karmani. Article ref - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-oxford-child-sex-abuse-verdict-highlights-a-cultural-problem-but-not-a-specifically-muslim-one-8616370.html
- Suppression of news coverage. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11699179/Report-about-Asian-grooming-gangs-was-supressed-to-avoid-inflaming-racial-tension.html
- Daily Mirror 2014. Article ref - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-grooming-scandal-tearing-4508666

Now Jim will not do any research into any of these references, he always steadfastly refuses to look at any perspective of any subject about which he already has his mind made up about. He is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most bigoted and intolerant members of this forum who has to continually resort to gross misrepresentation, pure invention and lies to fuel his arguments.

2: Steve Shaw - Geoffrey Wheatcroft Article

Here is a little sampler -

Steve Shaw - 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

"Yes, I'll sort you out later over your Wheatcroft farrago when I have a minute. Gird your loins. It's not about past historical posts, Keith. It's about what kind of man you are."

I will save you the trouble Shaw. This goes back to 2014 when there were numerous threads on the forum related to the First World War. As the "Usual Suspects" were getting hammered by fact, logic and reasoning they hit upon the tactic of getting threads closed so much argument was transferred from one thread to another.

First mention of Wheatcoft's article was given by Keith A of Hertford on the 10th December 2014 (The day after the article appeared in print in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" and here it is:

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Direct quote of what Geoffrey Wheatcroft had written and the very first mention and introduction of it to the forum it is perfectly accurate. Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

Next mention we get of Wheatcroft's article is in another WWI Thread running simultaneously with the WWI, Was No Mans Land thread with the same people involved hashing over the same ground.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Ridicule because he is incapable of supporting his views except by digging up long dead historians.

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in the Guardian this week.

The "he" being referred to here by the way is Steve Shaw.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

Jim, I have been linking you to quotes from historians for over a year.
Denying that shows either stupidity or desperation.
I could sit down for half an hour copying them on to one of these threads, but no doubt you would deny it all over again.

There are several already on these threads anyway.
And, still none from your side.

Al, it is so sad that you never had a chance to know those family members.
An older cousin to my father died in France too.

They went out, willingly in the vast majority of cases, to save Europe and Britain from a cruel invader.
Their leaders were not incompetent fools, but no-one knew how to fight such a war.

There were as many views afterwards as there were survivors, but from 1918 to about 1930 they overwhelmingly believed the war to have been right and Haig and the leadership worthy.

After that Lloyd George got his knife into the now dead Haig, and class war advocates denigrated the officer class with powerful propaganda.
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Clearly a passing reference to a previous quote that Steve Shaw immediately seizes on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

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

I wish to pursue this statement. Give me the Guardian link please.

BUT STEVE YOU'D ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE QUOTED IN FULL BY KEITH A SIX DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR REQUEST ABOVE IN THE "WWI NO MANS LAND" THREAD.

Nevertheless you got the following responses 48 minutes later.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: Steve, here it is again.
"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

This is the SECOND time that the article has been quoted on the forum in full by Keith A of Hertford. But good ol' "nitpicking" Steve starts worrying it, even although Keith A has responded to everything Shaw asked of him.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

Hmm. Interesting that you link to an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who basically seems to disagree with everybody about everything). Couple of points, Keith. You fibbed when you say he called AJP Taylor fraudulent. He doesn't like his stuff, for sure, but that was not a word he used against him. Still, it's asking a lot to get you to be accurate, I suppose. Incidentally, you implied that it was "the Guardian" that said he was fraudulent. It wasn't. It was a Guardian columnist. The Guardian, more than most papers, invites opinion from a wide spectrum. Slightly iffier even than that is you choice of Wheatcroft in your support in the first place. I mean, have you read what he has to say about Israel, Keith? If you haven't, gird up your loins, old chap, you won't like it. Another case of Keith's cherrypicking here?

Taking "nitpicking" to new heights but here is how Keith A responded

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

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

Now I make that just over one hour that it took Keith A to acknowledge that he had made an error and correct it and THEN knowing what a pedant you are Shaw he further corrects himself three minutes later by posting:

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

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.

Keith A then posts

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

I do not do "fibbing" Steve.
I was just referring back to that quote .
If you had read it when I first posted it just days ago, you would have seen the whole paragraph, and with a link so it could be seen in context.

So I was [not] being scrupulously honest, but I naturally abbreviated when I posted a reminder about it.

Perfectly reasonable explanation for the omission, especially when you consider the degree of thread "stalking" being done against Keith A by Shaw, Carroll, Raggytash, Greg F, and the Muskets, as shown by Jim Carroll jumping in to take up the baton.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively"
I suppose there's as much chance getting linked to this as there is to all your other "historian" claims!!
Jim Carroll

Gives you an idea of how much Jom keeps his finger on the pulse doesn't it, as the link Jom is asking for had already been posted on this very thread by Keith A at 17 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM. However Keith A very courteously points this out and provides Jom with the information and link he requested.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:53 AM

I gave the link just a couple of hours ago, and also when I first gave the quote a few days ago, but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

By now the "stalkers" are beginning to feel a bit foolish, Keith A has now posted or linked to the entire article THREE times and he has acknowledged his error. We were then subjected to them dropping "Cookies" and becoming anonymous "GUESTS"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:36 PM

Naughty naughty, Keith.

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

The actual quote -

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

KA of H "I do not do "fibbing" Steve."

No, you don't do you Steve. The article did describe the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent didn't it. As everyone can see. Errrr

Keith A then states the clarified position (to any sentient human being) by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

MAKING IT FOUR TIMES WHEATCROFT'S TEXT HAS BEEN FAITHFULLY QUOTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD - Not good enough for our team of "stalkers"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
...
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM
...
Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM
...
Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

You made BOTH statements Keith and I honestly and accurately pointed out that said specifically The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Which you did. It is there in black and white for everyone to see. OK, fine, you did then change your mind but only because you were challenged by Steve Shaw. You still said the Guardian described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Why even try to deny it when you so obviously made the statement? You are doing yourself no favours at all.

Now just to "nitpick" what our anonymous GUEST states here Keith immediately corrected his mistake at 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM - When did he then repeat that the works of both were "fraudulent" after that time?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

My original reference.
The link had been provided earlier that same day.

Keith A of Hertford- PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

THE FIFTH TIME THE PASSAGE BY WHEATCROFT HAS BEEN POSTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD

The following was moved to the thread by a Mudelf as he/she thought it belonged - It is an observation from a third party on the exchanges - The emphasis and passages highlighted in bold are by me.

Subject: BS: I am not a Mudcatter, but...
From: GUEST,Gervase - PM
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:07 AM

Dropped in to look for some lyrics after a lengthy absence. Made the mistake of looking below the line. Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it? Maybe those of you who hang on here haven't noticed it, in the same way a frog doesn't notice the water in the pan getting hotter, but - take it form me - the Mudcat looks pretty nasty!
And just to add my two penn'orth, KeithA is quite correct in his assertions. Trouble is, the veil of maudlin sentimentality and ignorance which clouds the issue is more seductive than the truth.
Yes, The Great War was unpleasant, yes, the casualty rates were horrible, almost as bad as earlier wars. But nine out of 10 do those who marched off to war came home, and those who did said it had to be done. The victory of 1918 was hard won, but ultimately so successful that Hitler was inspired to base his blitzkrieg on it.
That's all Keith is trying to say, but the sentimental shroud wavers of Willie McBride seem determined to shout him down.
Not for nothing is the stereotype of a folk-singer that of a bore with his finger in his ear.

What this provokes from Shaw are a number of nasty personal attacks on GUEST,Gervase that I can post if anyone thinks it would serve any purpose in showing up Shaw for the type of man he is, but this post is already far too long.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM

Death by C&P?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

Its a bit of a weird conversation - if you don't mind me saying. I'm sure you will. But that's mudcat.

I think you're talking in stereotypes....nothing is really quite as it seems.

A few years ago I was doing a terms supply teaching in in a big comprehensive school in Nottingham.

I went looking through the stock cupboard and came out with a set of An Inspector calls. You will recall the plot. A young single girl without family is reduced to poverty, prostitution and finally suicide by the actions of a selfish middle class family.

I'd taught the text in Derby a few years before and most kids go along with the plot of who is the mysterious Inspector - who turns out to be God, bringing the family to judgement.

However I was teaching a class of mainly Asian girls, and they seemed very quiet - and difficult to involve.

I mentioned this in the staffroom. One of the other teachers said to me - the subject is far too close to home. The red light district is round the corner from this school - half the kids in the class you're teaching, are already on the game.

So really the idea that somehow Asian girls are totally off limits can't really be true. And being a sexual predator is not exclusive to one particular racial group.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

My point was quite a simple one teri,

The professor objects to people using information from some years ago against him but he is quite prepared to use similarly aged information in his racist rants against muslims.

To coin one of your favoured expressions sauce for the goose etc...





PS I did read much of your post, couldn't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM

Why thank you, Teribus! You saved me hours of work which I was just about to embark on this sunny morning. Of course, all your dredged-up quotes posts are absolutely correct, though you forgot a the one from Keith that claimed that his misrepresentation of Wheatcroft's words was only him "speaking generally."

Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

And who were these people who "studiously ignored," blah blah? Not me! I had no interest in them and had never heard of them. But what I did know is that I'd read the article in the Guardian and spotted a discrepancy in Keith's quoting from it on the 16th. That was my only focus. I certainly wasn't trying to make any case via those books about the war. Go and have a look! By the way, on the 10th in the other thread all Keith did was cut and paste, totally without comment or context, a tract from the Wheatcroft article. Little wonder that no-one engaged with it (not even you). Apart from a separate vague and inaccurate allusion to the article, claiming that the Guardian had rubbished the two books (completely untrue but hey), the next mention was in ANOTHER THREAD (!) and it contained the lie that Taylor's work has been called by the Guardian (untrue) "fraudulent" (untrue). You defend that as "clearly a passing reference to a previous quote."   That's like my stating that Charlotte Brontë described Alice going down a hole and meeting a pink elephant and saying that it was only a "passing reference" to Alice in Wonderland.

Do you think that it's fair to expect anyone who read the thread containing the lie to think "Oh, hang on a sec, I wonder whether Keith happens to have quoted the piece in full in an entirely different thread? Oh dear, I'd better just go and have a look round for it!" That is just nonsensical. The plain fact is that in a long, standalone thread the first mention of the piece was a lie. Something else you've forgotten to mention is that you yourself have acknowledged on occasion Keith's misrepresentation. Finally, had I not pulled Keith up on the misquote, it would have stood unchallenged, a lie, for ever more. You don't like that sort of thing and neither do I. Keith decided to back up to the wall and fight instead of immediately correcting himself. That is disreputable and it should inform everyone here as to his questionable trustworthiness in everything else he posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM

Looks like my first paragraph was the one that got away, proofreadingly-speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM

Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame? Teribus has adequately illustrated what a heap of trash you all are. You have no real interest in honest discussion at all, which is evident from your

continual practice of subverting threads which you feel set you in the wrong.

I can't understand how Mr T or Keith can summon up the patience to deal with you

After one of his usual responses to me, Jim tries to goad by inferring that I cannot answer his misrepresentations, insults and downright lies.......well, that is not the case as his allegations would be simple to refute ...but time consuming.
I just can't be arsed getting involved in a pointless exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM

And your comment adds what to the discussion exactly, ake? Apart from showing you up as a sycophant who's only interest is jumping up and down on the sidelines when you see a fight.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM

The same question could also be asked of you mr gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

Link

Interesting article about sexual offences in Sweden, doesn't seem to support the racist rants we get here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM

Try again

Link

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

How strange

BBC News today. Is Malmo the "rape capital" of Europe?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

Not really Iains but beside the point anyway. My question was addressed to ake.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

"Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?
Have you none ake?
Keith's "implant" theory is the kind of shire Mengele and his like set out to prove about the Jews
"Teribus has adequately illustrated what a heap of trash you all are."
Teribus illustrated nothing other than his own extremism, he made claims about Keith's Implant theory and then wisely pissed off when he was asked to substantiate them, now he's back with a load of links that have nbeen tried, tested and found wanting
You make one of your hit-and- run sorties, and no doubt will piss of when asked to verify what you say.
"I just can't be arsed getting involved in a pointless exercise."
There you go - what did I say?
If you scumbags believe that the Pakistani culture is implanted to rape underage women, produce your proof.
You have the official figures from the Department of Justice, you know the minescule numbers involved in these crimes - who knows, maybe Mengele left something behind him in his research papers that were intended for the Jews but can be applied to Muslims
Racist scumbags, the nasty little trio of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:26 AM

Dave, I said,
"Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.
Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.
That prevailed until long after the thread closed. "

Your Guardian piece came two years after the thread closed.
When I posted that view there was no other explanation being discussed by anyone.

Jim,
What a stupid lie after saying "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Are you mad?

No. It was not my opinion. I was in no position to hold one.

Read the rest of my sentence. I believed it "but only because of the testimonies......"

That was the only theory about at the time, and its proponents were well placed to know the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM

When I posted that view there was no other explanation being discussed by anyone.

Yes there was. We were discussing it and other theories were proposed. Look back at the thread.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"No. It was not my opinion."
Read what you wrote Keith - it was your opinion and your invention.
Down in plain English for you and everybody else to see.
""but only because of the testimonies......"
So it wasn't your opinion "because of the testimonies" - sorry, too usy to work that one out
There were no testimonies - you invented those as well - that's why you refuse to reproduce them.
"That was the only theory about at the time"
It was not a "theory" - it was your invention
Scum like the National Front and B.N.P. had been peddling that shite anbodt Muslims, Blacks and immigrants in general, but only a few crazies took them seriously
Maybe they were your "experts" - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Dave,
Yes there was. We were discussing it and other theories were proposed. Look back at the thread.

I have looked.
When I posted that view no other explanation for the over-representation had been suggested.
If that is not true, produce one that was posted before.

Jim,
Read what you wrote Keith - it was your opinion and your invention.

No it was not. Believing it does not make it my opinion.
I said repeatedly at the time that it was not my opinion.
Read what I wrote.

My diagnosis was not my opinion. I was shocked by it, but I believed it.

The coming of storm Doris was not my opinion, but I believed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

Telling me which thread are you talking about would help...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

The day following the post you keep referring to.
It was never my "hypothesis."

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM
Lox, how can you claim I am making a racial hypothesis?
I am not making it, and it is about a culture within a racial group.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

Dave, the thread you just told me to look back at!
"Muslim Prejudice"

(Unless you download early, before 7am, you can only get a page at a time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

"No it was not. Believing it does not make it my opinion."
Don't be stupid Keith - of course it does
And it was your invention
Please don't continue saying you believed it whan nobody else said it - you are only digging yourself in deeper
You might porove nme wrong by linking to such a statement, but you have refused to do so since you first made the claim
Time to put up or fess up
It's all your own work - be proud of it like a true creative artist should
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM

" I had no interest in them and had never heard of them. But what I did know is that I'd read the article in the Guardian and spotted a discrepancy in Keith's quoting from it on the 16th." - Steve Shaw

So let us get this firmly fixed in our minds shall we Shaw.

1. You say that you had no interest in works of Taylor or Clark and had never heard of them.

2. So disinterested were you in them in fact that on the 16th December 2014 you read something on a thread and instantly recall to mind an article in the Guardian from the 9th December???

3. If you weren't interested why read the article and what was it in the article that lodged itself in your mind to the extent that your recall of that week old article that you could spot a discrepancy centred on the omission of one word?

There are two words Shaw that describe that "explanation" of yours Shaw - one is "Bullshit", the second is unbelievable"

Are you saying that you did not post to this thread extensively? You did not bring up in discussion"cherry-picking historians", you did not bring up in discussion "peer review of the work done by historians" - No interest my arse Shaw.

"Do you think that it's fair to expect anyone who read the thread containing the lie to think "Oh, hang on a sec, I wonder whether Keith happens to have quoted the piece in full in an entirely different thread?" - Steve Shaw

You have got to be joking Shaw! The extent that you and your pals "stalk" and "mob" Keith A from thread to thread? The WWI was No Mans Land thread was riddled with your posts along with those of the other usual suspects as was the "I'm not an historian but..." thread. It is a damn sight more plausible explanation than the one you offered about somehow remembering word for word the wording from a very long article that you'd read a week previously FFS.

As for your contention related to Stand alone threads" - what are they when they are at home Shaw - All the WWI threads were interconnected as they only came into being due to you and your pals getting them shut down as you lot were being made to look more and more idiotic.

Very commendable that "lies" and "inaccuracies" so incense you that you feel that they must not be allowed to go unchallenged - yet you let your own pass and those of Jim Carroll - you are a lying two-faced hypocrite and you have just been exposed Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

Care to tell us what you actually think about the professors cultural implant theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

You've nailed it Teribus and your conclusion is one that that I arrived at some time ago myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

Which professor would that be Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

You said no other theory was discussed, Keith? Did not take long to find this. I am sure there were others on that thread and in the papers at the time as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:26 AM

But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.


That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

Genuine curiousity on my part - No axe to grind. Hopefuly valid questions to ask but I don't know if anyone here is qualified to answer:-(

DeG

DtG
Being the Spanish David el Gnomo at the time :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

Duel standards to the fore again I see Terrikins. It is OK for you to refer to myself as Raggy, although my chosen pseudonym is Raggytash, but it is not OK for me to refer to the professor.

I take you do don't actually agree that there is an implant in Pakistani culture to abuse.

Good, there's hope for you yet. It's a pity you don't have the courage to have a quiet word with the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM

Oh dear, Mr. Corbyn and his party sure have some......er...."interesting" friends and followers: The Palestine Solidarity Campaign of Jew hatred

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:51 AM

D the G
a starting point.

2012 stats the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/12/police-stop-and-search-black-people
and


http://thinkethnic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Policing%20ethnic%20minority%20communities.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Pretty much the points I was making back in 2011, Iains.

Thanks anyway

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

Ha, with friends like that, Teribus...😂

When I've paid for a paper I tend to read articles in it. Duh. I read articles from contributors to inform myself of the various views abroad on topical issues. My Dad is an expert on WWI and has given many talks on it. From what I hear from him I'd say he takes a far more measured view than you with your Blimp-like, little Englander king-and-country angle. Pity you feel the need to do that, because you do have an eye for detail, I'd be the first to admit. But none of this makes me an expert. I am far from being that but it doesn't mean I can't take an interest and read the bloody articles! And my memory is perfectly good enough to get my antennae a-twitching a week after I've read something then see something about it that doesn't chime. The above rant from you is typically unfocused. Let me try again to concentrate your mind. It really is a quite simple: Keith told us in a thread separate from the one you're using to defend him that "the Guardian" stated that Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Both parts of that in quotes are one hundred percent inaccurate. Why do you suppose Keith thought he could get away with that? Yes he'd copied and pasted the thing a week earlier into a DIFFERENT THREAD! He hoped no-one would remember that or bother to go back to check. His agenda was that he wanted us to think that both books had been "rubbished" (his word). They were not recent works by living historians and the whole thrust of his argument was that such works didn't count. Had I not spotted what he'd done the error (aka lie) would have stood forever. As for me, I had never heard of the two books in question until I'd read the Guardian piece. I still haven't read them. I was not "using them to make my case which Keith then demolished." My sole focus was the deliberate misrepresenting of the piece. As you rightly point out, he had already quoted the extract in full (in another thread!!), AND mentioned the article again, so how come he got it so badly wrong unless he'd done it deliberately? You defend this deceitful behaviour by dismissing a clear attempt to mislead as "just a passing reference." Is that really the best you can do?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

" yet you let your own pass and those of Jim Carroll "
Which lies and inaccuracies would they be Teribus?
You've nit picked and semanitised on unimportant points whenever you've found yourself in a corner - rat-at-throat technique - but you have at no time caught either of us out in a deliberate lie
You usually refer to things you can't handle as "made up shit", (including researched and documented evidence), then ride off into the sunset, as you have with Keith's obscene theory and your own moral high-ground for Britain's indigenous perverts, but you have never found me lying nor, to my recollection, Dave
Lying is posting something, denying you posted it, then blaming it on some non-existent "expert" or "real historian"
Plenty of that on this forum, but not from this quarter.
I don't count myself a particularly truthful person; I occasionally bend or side-step the truth to save the feelings of others, but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly - certainly not publicly - it is pointless and it has a nasty habit of blowing up in your face, as Keith is discovering now.
Lying in discussion is for those who are here to "win" something - go count how manyy times your running-mate has claimed to have won, or declared "you lose", when you have a few months to spare
You, on the other hand, contantly attempt to pass off your own quite often archaic and jingoistic opinions as facts; you refuse to substantiate them and when you are challenged, you try to bully and bluster your way through rather than lose face - a combination of insecurity and ignorance.
Can we make another appointment for the same time next week and we'll continue this asession?
I have another patient in the waiting room !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

Duel?? Quick before Steve of the double standard picks you up on it. It should be dual Raggy.

But no dual standard at all.

Your question WAS:

Raggytash - 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

"Care to tell us what you actually think about the professors cultural implant theory?"

I asked what I thought to be a fairly reasonable question Raggy, i.e. "Which professor would that be Raggy?"

Still waiting for an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:15 AM

but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly

But this is not a debating forum, Jim. It is a discussion forum. How do I know that? Teribus told me! So I suppose the rules of debate do not apply. Apart from when someone wants to win...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM

Sounds like a cop-out to me terrikins, I would think most people would consider it in the same way.

Perhaps if you had any real concern for the professor, as you claim to, you might give him some constructive advice about his racial implant theory.


PS You could look up the definition of professor, it does have more than one meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM

Dave, you gave reasons why the over-representation might not be real.
My only case was that it was real, which proved to be true.

No explanation for a real over-representation had been given when I reported those views that had been in all the media at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:45 AM

How to make up shit. Here goes:

Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014.

That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Keith on Mudcat, one week later.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

You expounded the theory that it was due to cultural implants.

I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

It's all in black and white, Keith.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:11 AM

And acknowledged and corrected about one hour latter - the proof of that happening is detailed on this thread, as is the refusal to accept that acknowledgement and correction by Steve Shaw. That was in December 2014 and to this day Shaw still does not own up to what can be plainly seen in the detail given in my post Teribus - 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM.

Here it is again:

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

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

FOLLOWED BY:

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

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times - and yet Shaw still attempts to convey the idea that no correction was ever made, which of course is a downright lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:23 AM

"Oh I asked Carroll about this "insecurity" thing,"
Didn't notice this
In my experience, most bullies are insecure, that is why they bully
"which proved to be true."
Why do you persist with this Keith - it is not true and now you know it can't be
300 cannot possibly be an over-representation of anything
And your mates wonder why we keep on at you - this is purely self-inflicted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

Dave,
I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

No Dave. You suggested reasons why the over-representation might be an illusion.
My case was that it was real, but I acknowledged that I could not prove you wrong.

Later I was asked if I believed the explanation was cultural.
I said I believed it was, " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM

Jim,
300 cannot possibly be an over-representation of anything

Less than 2% of the population are of that demographic.
If they form more than 2% of any group, then they are over-represented.
That is what the term means.

87% is a massive over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM

I need to say something about Teribus.

I am currently being cross examined by the whole (non-existent!) gang of four over a couple of posts I once made years ago.

He is answering for me on one of them, and doing it better than I ever could.

I am very grateful to him because all these simultaneous attacks are too much for one person to deal with.

I also have a life to live, and probably a short one.
Thanks Teribus. You are a friend indeed.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM

"I am currently being cross examined by the whole (non-existent!) gang of four over a couple of posts I once made years ago."
You are being asked to justify an obscenely racist statement - it was raised in response to a request for evidence of your extremism
You ppersist on lying about it and you ignore the irrefutable evidence from the Justice Departmant which proves that no "over-representation" could not be true
Your "massive over-representation" originated in a book entitled "easy Meat", written by an author with connections to an extreme American publication.
You are attempting to smear an entire culture by suggesting that they are prone to child rape.
Please don't suggest we are "cross-examining" you - if you had made this statemnt publicly elsewhere, you would be faced with the possibility of prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws.
If you can't face up to the implications of your beliefs, do not express them publicly
I have worked in houses that have been damaged by having petrol poured though the letterbox by people who share your beliefs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM

Keith still did not retract his misrepresentation and never has, and still did not accurately reproduce Wheatcroft's remarks in the "explanatory" post of his you reproduce. The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy. And you still can't explain why he did it in the first place when he was clearly thoroughly familiar with the passage in Wheatcroft's article. It was a clear attempt at deception, in a different thread, made in order to further his case that only living, recent historians should be listened to. An absolutely typical case of twisting things in order to make a case. It's hardly surprising that you can't see it. There is no excuse for what he said and it was no accidental error. And that is the point you can't bring yourself to acknowledge. Good luck with staying healthy for as long as possible, Keith. If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:29 PM

Now this IS going to be interesting, particularly as the people we will be discussing Shaw are people you:

a) Are not the least interested in
b) People you do not know
c) People whose work you do not know

Right then please explain this remark of yours "Never-a-true-word-will =pass-my-lips" Shaw

" The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Now let me see A.J.P.Taylor's work was described as being vulgar - vulgar in the sense that it was illiterate, it was tawdry, it was uneducated. It was not considered "vulgar" because it was full of dirty jokes.

Clark's work was considered largely fraudulent which is not surprising considering the man - he even admitted inventing the incident from which the work got it's title.

So tell us all what you mean by stating that " The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Crucial for the accuracy of what precisely liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

"Good luck with staying healthy for as long as possible, Keith. If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench." - Steve Shaw

Utterly contemptible Shaw. It speaks volumes about you. About the nastiest thing I have seen on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:54 PM

In your eyes maybe. Not my intention at all. Honi soit qui mal y pense, eh?

By the way, how do you know what Wheatcroft meant by vulgar? Is he a mate and confidant of yours (poor sod)? His words, complete with those rather important qualifiers, were "rather vulgar" for Taylor and "largely fraudulent" for Clark (and ONLY Clark, a point you seem keen to avoid). No rubbishing there. Criticism with qualification, not rubbishing. Never mind what I've read or what I'm interested in. Focus. Keith deliberately misrepresented the article in a DIFFERENT THREAD to the one in which he did his original copy and paste. He knew the piece but decided to risk misrepresenting it in order to make his case for modern, living historians only. He was already under pressure, quite right too, for sticking to that ridiculous position and he was wriggling like mad. You can read. You're good at picking up discrepancies. Take off those blinkers and have a look.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:33 PM

Ah Shaw so there was nothing crucial at all, or at least nothing that you can point to.

As to the meaning of "vulgar":

vul•gar (ˈvʌl gər)

adj.
1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar gesture.
3. lacking in refinement; crude; coarse; boorish.
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society.
5. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular.
6. current; popular; common: vulgar beliefs.
7. lacking in distinction or aesthetic value; banal; ordinary.

While all those picked out in bold could apply my money is on the last one 7.lacking in distinction or aesthetic value; banal; ordinary as being what Geoffrey Wheatcroft meant (The others just do not fit).

Don't know about you Shaw but for the "Macauley of the age" to turn out work that was considered "rather vulgar" under that definition of the word, then I would consider putting it out for sale to the general public to be also rather "fraudulent". Not really the point though was it. The important thing, the bit that was crucial was that the work on the First World War that was written by A.J.P. Taylor and the one written by Alan Clark were both rubbished not only by modern day historians but also by their own peers at the time those books were brought out. Neither man Taylor or Clark were specialists in the subject and both wrote their books to make money. Neither of the books were very good but they are the books you and others felt made the points that you could use against the arguments being put up by Keith A and the host of modern day historians who had the temerity to suggest that during the course of the Great War the British Army was generally well led. Of course they are right in stating that, of course they are right in pointing out where the revisionists writing between 1929 and 1969 were in error. They could do so because they were armed with far, far better information available from a far wider range of sources than the "revisionists" had. Not my opinion Shaw just plain straightforward documented and recorded fact.

Couldn't give a toss whether or not you consider that Keith A acknowledged and immediately corrected his casual reference, but anyone reading the exchange can make their own minds up and I do not think for one nano-second that they will adopt your view on it. By all means continue to "worry" this particular bone of yours, but bring it up in any other thread at any time in the future and your lie will be exposed afresh, time, after time, after time. I've got it all saved under "favourites" and can have it in print in seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:50 PM

No Dave. You suggested reasons why the over-representation might be an illusion.
My case was that it was real, but I acknowledged that I could not prove you wrong.

Keith. I suggested no such thing. I said specifically That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

Now, I know that you and I speak a different language. You have denied it. Surely this proves the point. Or is Winscale is now called Sellafield and radiation is magic moonbeams?

You have also never acknowledged my response to your

"I have looked.
When I posted that view no other explanation for the over-representation had been suggested.
If that is not true, produce one that was posted before."

I have produced one and you are now trying to twist that.

It's like trying to plait sand.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

I admire the way you waste your energy. You're still rattling on about those books as if I give a toss. I haven't read them and have never used them in any argument about the whys and wherefores of the war. Simply not the point. Focus. Keith deliberately misrepresented the article in the Guardian. He knew the piece all too well and chose to misquote it in a different thread from the one in which he did his copy and paste. Either admit that very simple and incontrovertible fact or lose your credibility. Keith said that Wheatcroft called Taylor's book "fraudulent." Wheatcroft said no such thing. What part of that don't you understand, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:06 PM

"It speaks volumes about you. About the nastiest thing I have seen on this forum."
Not really Teribus
I six years ago I was informed that my prostrate levels where dangerously high and I was sent to Galway Hospital for a series of somewhat difficult tests, including some extremely painful biopsies.
These went on for three years, till eventually I was told that there was little they could do and I should come back when I showed signs of cancer, which I probably will.
The only time I have ever mentioned this on this forum is after one particularly grueling session when I was feeling particularly low and somewhat frightened and I let slip during an argument on music that I had had a bad day at the hospital.
My posting was immediately followed by one from someone whose opinion I have enormous respect for who informed me that the state of my health has no place on these discussions - I apologised, and I have never mentioned the subject until now.
While I respect the fact that some people might feel to the need to publicise their situation by opening a thread, I also believe their situation has no place in these discussion.
I don't believe Steve was being in any way nasty - he has offered his best wishes on Keith's thread a number of times (I haven't because I really don't go in for that sort of thing)
Keith's insistence in continuing these sometimes bitter arguments as tenaciously as he does, given his situation, but that is his choice.
If he chooses to continue to do battle the way he has done, that is his decision.
Keith's health has been at the back of my mind throughout all of these arguments, and I suspect Steve feels the same.
The subject of racism is one that causes me much anger, so I'm not prepared to let it go while Keith chooses to continue.
I was left with a feeling that Ake's "Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?" was an underhanded reference to this subject - I sincerely hope not, but I can't think os what else he fely we should feel ashamed about.
I suggest that any references to Keith's or anybody's health should be a private matter for them alone and suggest it is not mentioned again - this is the last reference I will make to mine or anybody's and I hope everybody will follow suit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:19 PM

In the States they can 'seed' the PC and initiate cure without any interference in the plumbing.

The TrumPutiny - When they both disobey each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:36 PM

Absolutely the correct perspective, Jim. If someone feels compromised by their failing health, it behoves them to back off from online squabbles if they feel they can no longer handle the flak. I see no such signs as yet in Keith's behaviour. I wish him well and would fully understand If he wishes to back away from the arguments and would never feel triumphalist if he did, but, while he's here fighting his battles, he'll get no quarter from me. And, if that were me in his situation, I'd expect to be treated in exactly the same way. Teribus's remark was out of order and typical of him, but nothing he ever says bothers me in the slightest. Why would it! I find him incredibly easy to take on, quite amusing at times actually. He has shown that he is serially unable to focus on the point of any issue he takes on. I know someone just like him in my close family so I'm used to it, unfortunately for Teribus. In our case we get by by humouring our man. Here, we have to at least try to engage with his bluster. That must make him feel important. But you do have to be a little sympathetic!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:28 AM

Here it is:

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

You've got some bloody neck to complain about deliberate misrepresentation Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:57 AM

Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM

1: "Keith still did not retract his misrepresentation and never has" [Example of Steve Shaw lying], and still did not accurately reproduce Wheatcroft's remarks in the "explanatory" post of his you reproduce". [Oh yes he did as shown in my previous post and by the fact that the particular passage was posted a further five times subsequently in the thread in question - a FACT that you seem to have conveniently forgotten.]

2: "The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Oh yes and here we read your views on how "crucial" they were:

Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

"You're still rattling on about those books as if I give a toss. I haven't read them and have never used them in any argument about the whys and wherefores of the war."

Crucial Indeed

As to you never using them = another Shaw lie - you have stated in argument that the works of the revisionist historians (1929 to 1969 - which includes work by Taylor and Clark) are of equal weight and importance to work done later. If memory serves me correctly you and the "pack" had a little theme going for a while with adjectives describing various "historians"

Keep going Shaw, let me know when you reach Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM

No - Here it is
I re-read the 'Muslim Prejudice' thread last night - it is probably one of the most sickening one-handed campaigns against a social/national group I have ever come across.
Single-highhandedly, Keith set out to show that an entire racial/national community were a threat to British society because of their "implanted" tendency - an entire community inclined were inclined to abuse of young women because of their culture and were forced to resist that "implant" to stop themselves from doing so.
The only support he had was an 'small invisible army' of people he had invented to back up what, if made publicly, would have been exposed for what it was, a one-man racist attack
Nobody on that thread agreed with him and one by one, his opponents walked away in disgust until finally, Joe Offer had the good sense to close down the thread.
Similar subjects have come and gone, Ireland being the one that sticks in my memory because it was an attack on me and mine, this time it was a two-handed job - the same invisible army was conjured up then with the same invented facts.
Nobody is "making up shit" here Teribus", other than you and you are doing it in order to support Keith's fanaticism.
You want to prove people are lying - show Keith didn't say what he said or produce the "implanted culture" quotes that suggest an entire cultural/national group tend towards underage sex" - you have produced nothing but denial so far.
The Muslim people are probably the most law-abiding, respectful and industrious community in Britain today.
Despite this, they bear the brunt of extremist harassment, open persecution and actual verbal and physical attacks from the lower echelons of British society.
I have no intention of encouraging people like you pair to spread that persecution to the threads of this forum.
You want to prove that Muslims are a bunch of child-molesting perverts (on the basis of the actions of probably 300 criminals nationally) produce your evidence.
The same goes for Keith.
I'm not interested in the (invented) opinions of others - anybody who holds the views being expressed here is an out-and-out racist.
Anybody who expressed those views publicly and openly outside the internet would be guilty of breaking British law regarding incitement to race hatred and liable to prosecution (that fact alone is proof positive that Keith's claims of support are made-up)   
Until you justify your claims with evidence of cultural perversion, or produce actual examples of "prominent people" describing an entire cultural community as 'The Enemy Within', I think we're finished here.
I have no intention of giving your offensive views 'the oxygen of publicity', as someone infamous once said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM

"I was left with a feeling that Ake's "Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?" was an underhanded reference to this subject - I sincerely hope not, but I can't think os what else he fely we should feel ashamed about."

Don't judge me according to your values Jim, I would no more allude to the health problems of my friend Keith than I would to any other member. Especially to make any sort of debating point.

My remarks were motivated by frustration over the sheer inability of your group to realise what you are attempting to do.
You are engaged in a disgusting attempt to obfuscate. Teribus has shown brilliantly where this has been taking place yet you still SHAMEFULLY deny the evidence presented.

Of course your whole idiotic "liberal" agenda is based on the denial of evidence......and strangely enough for self confessed Atheists, reliance on blind faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

Jim,
You are being asked to justify an obscenely racist statement - it was raised in response to a request for evidence of your extremism

Why do you need to prove extremism?
I am not an extremist, but if I was you should still just demolish my arguments.
Calling me a name is not the same thing.

The trouble is that you can not demolish my arguments so you go for personal attacks.
You have to go back six years to find something you can misrepresent as extremist.
It is not extreme to say we are all implanted to some extent by our culture.
It is not extreme to quote people from and close to that culture blaming the culture.

Stick to the current issues and stop making personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

Steve,
If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench.

I should allow you and your gang to smear me and traduce my character and reputation?
Of course I have to defend myself however many of you combine against me with your nasty personal attacks.

You even admitted a few days ago that you were just trying show me as a bad person.
Why can you not just demolish my arguments?
You would if you could, but smearing is something you are capable of.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Dave,
That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

You were "wondering" or suggesting that the alarming statistic did not describe reality. That the over-representation was an illusion.

I put forward my evidence that it was real, you suggested reasons it might not be.
I chose not to argue.

No-one came up with an explanation for the real over-representation.
Why they were doing it rather than explaining it away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM

Steve,
If someone feels compromised by their failing health, it behoves them to back off from online squabbles

I tried to back off from your dredging up of ancient posts to misrepresent and use against me.
I can not allow myself to be smeared by the whole gang of you without defending myself.

If you just challenged my arguments on the current issues I would have no complaint.
It is the historical smearing attempted simultaneously by the whole gang of you that is so hard for one person to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Once again professor there is no "little gang" no matter how many times you say it, it will not become true. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

It is a sign of paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

"Why do you need to prove extremism?"
Because you have infected this forum with yours
"I am not an extremist,"
Proof of the pudding and the rest of this postings is exactly that
Muslims are not implanted perverts, as you claim they are.
"Don't judge me according to your values Jim,"
I don't Ake, I judge you by what you say and what I believe you are
"My remarks were motivated by frustration over the sheer inability of your group to realise what you are attempting to do."
We are attempting to stop a racist attack on an entire community - what do you believe we are trying to do?
Keith persists, we attempt to show what he is doing
You make mindless claims of what "Teribus has proved" and he has proved nothing
Can we add you to the list of those who believe Muslims are implanted perverts?
"Of course your whole idiotic "liberal" agenda is based on the denial of evidence."
I'll take that as a "yes"
"And then there were three"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

You were "wondering" or suggesting that the alarming statistic did not describe reality. That the over-representation was an illusion.


AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH! NO I FUCKING WASN'T!

Sorry but you are enough to make a saint swear. I was pointing out possible reasons for the reported over-representation. I usually blame myself for not putting the point over well enough but in this case I do not see how it can be misinterpreted. Apart from by you.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

Dave,
I was pointing out possible reasons for the reported over-representation.

No. You were trying to explain it away.

You provided no explanation for why they did it, just suggested that they might not be doing it.

They were doing it and I was asked for an explanation for why they did it.

I gave the only explanation for why they were doing it that had appeared at that time.

If that is not true Dave, show us an explanation for why they were doing it from before my post.

Also please explain why you feel the need to have that discussion all over again.

Rag, the four of you, acting together as a gang as you often do, are now all trying to smear me by misrepresenting two posts from years ago.

You walk, talk and quack like ducks.
A gang of ducks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

I didn't start it but I am going to finish it - You said there was no other explanation. I said there was. You believe you know what I meant better than I do. You are wrong. End of story.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Paranoia, pure and simple. There is no "little gang" it's all in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM

Well, Teribus, if you were digging and aiming for Oz you'd be taking so many twists and turns that you'd probably emerge in Dudley town centre. Focus, my good man. Keith deliberately misrepresented a quote in a different thread from the one where he first pasted it a week earlier. He knew the article so he did it on purpose in order to promote his argument about only listening to modern, living historians. Nobody "rubbished" the two books and nobody called Taylor "fraudulent". He could have had Keith in court for that. Keith did it on purpose.This appears to be eluding you. Had someone not picked him up, the lie would have stood. Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing. Jaysus, man, you even nitpick about what size bullets were fired somewhere or other a hundred years ago.

Please stop bleating about "gangs," Keith. You bring this stuff on yourself time and time again. You do it over Israel, you do it over "cultural implanting," you do it over Labour's "serious antisemitism problem" and you did it over the Guardian piece. You are obsessively one-sided and blinkered in almost every issue you take on. You think you are never wrong and you make it clear that you are out to win. If you get people's backs up you have only yourself to blame. Stop moaning. If you can't stand the heat, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:11 AM

BTW - You asked for a reason for the over-representation, not for why they were doing it. As far as I know no one has asked that but if they did they would receive the answer that they do it for the same reason that any other criminal gangs do it - profit. Regardless of creed, culture or colour.

Are you now saying that British Pakistanis commit these crimes because they are culturally implanted so to do while while anyone else doing the same does so for other reasons?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:05 AM

"There is no "little gang" it's all in your head."
It must be very lonely all on its own up there

I really would leave this nasty trio Kluxers to their own devices if I were you Dave and Steve
The longer you encourage them, the the bigger the field they have to spread their racist manure
I always thought it a great pity that their offensiveness managed to drive off the few Muslim contributors this forum once had
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM

More Shaw misrepresentations

1: "Keith deliberately misrepresented a quote in a different thread from the one where he first pasted it a week earlier."

Prove that it was done deliberately Shaw - The fact that it was corrected immediately by Keith A kills your deliberately nonsense.

2: "He knew the article so he did it on purpose in order to promote his argument about only listening to modern, living historians."

Shaw misrepresentation - But I will give you a chance to disprove it - show us any post where Keith A has EVER suggested anything even remotely like that assertion about only listening to modern, living historians." in any of the WWI threads. I can however dig out posts of yours that claim he has but putting words in other people's mouths and taking them to task for it is a favoured tactic of both yourself and Jim Carroll for years on this forum.

3: "Nobody "rubbished" the two books and nobody called Taylor "fraudulent". He could have had Keith in court for that."

Nobody? Well Geoffrey Wheatcroft did for a start he called a book by a man thought by many to be the finest historian of his day "rather vulgar", but there again Taylor was writing about something that was not his specialised area of expertise. Go to a post of mine in the "Oh What A Lovely War" Thread (If you don't I will) and there you will find a detailed list of about eighteen names of historians, specialists in the period and topic, present and past who "rubbished" both books. A.J.P. Taylor's greatest critic being Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford, the man he beat to that job was A.J.P. Taylor.

As for being taken to court? Given the speed of the acknowledgement of the omission and the appearance of the correction no case would ever have been brought, no case would have had the remotest chance of succeeding. After all you do not deliberately set out to deceive by misquoting a sentence that you have faithfully and accurately quoted days before, you complete and utter idiot.   

4: "Keith did it on purpose.This appears to be eluding you."

a) As previously stated - Prove it
b) The only person I see who has missed something is you:

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

5 "Had someone not picked him up, the lie would have stood."

What lie? An error of omission at worst, that was corrected, your post asked for a link and that is what you got not just once but five times.

6: Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing. Jaysus, man, you even nitpick about what size bullets were fired somewhere or other a hundred years ago.

"Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing." Well you certainly do and you have in your very next sentence led us on to two examples of you "standing for it" when members of your own little gang are guilty of spreading lies.

The "nitpicking" about what sized of bullets were fired. This "nitpick" was in response to Jim Carroll stating that Kitchener had supplied the wrong sized shells to the BEF in 1915. I picked him up on that Shaw and demonstrated that factually his statement was rubbish and a lie, if any statement made in complete and utter ignorance can indeed be a lie (Jim Carroll does indeed make very many statements in complete and utter ignorance - you never pick him up on them Shaw). Having explained to Carroll that it was not the wrong sized shells that had been supplied but the wrong type of shell Carroll went on to his second deliberately told lie - that Kitchener had been forced to resign as Secretary of State for War. Truth was of course there was never any such resignation, a matter of simple well recorded and documented fact - Now as someone who does not approve of deliberate lies being told can you explain why you did not take Jim Carroll to task over this whopper Shaw? I'll tell you why shall I? It would have meant publicly embarrassing one of your own little band wouldn't it. Oh and on that theme, there were no corrections from Keith A's other "stalkers" - Raggy, Dave the Gnome, the Muskets, Greg F either.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

For fucks sake, this is now a war of attrition dating back to WW1 and as just as vacuously vicious
Let these morons drown in their own swill
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

well as you know Jim, Steve and Dave are experts in racism. They detected it in me and I didn't know I'd got it.

You do sometimes feel with mudcat. These guys missed their calling in life. They should have been working for HUAC at the height of the MacCarthy era detecting doctrinal impurity in others. Or maybe the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

'first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

Such a demanding commandment. In these judgemental times, Jeremy Kyle is so popular, you can see why Christianity is losing ground.

Meanwhile the Labour Party is in shitsville. I keep looking at this thread hoping we can get some ideas for solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM

Why is Christianity (or any other religion)losing ground perceived as a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:21 AM

"well as you know Jim, Steve and Dave are experts in racism."
It doesn't take "experts" to work out that describing an entire race or cultur 'potential perverts' is recism in the extreme
You want to address that statement, feel free, otherwise you are sniping from the sidelines
"Meanwhile the Labour Party is in shitsville. "
Is it?
It is if it continues to be a pale shadow of Toryism, as it has been over the last few decades.
We have a one-system system in Britain, all the parties scrambling to support the status quo.
If that continues, so will declining industry and increasing inequality.
Changing that situation won't be easy and is bound to lose friends, but it is noticeable that, while the Labour Party leadership were scrambling to keep Corbyn out, the membership voted him in as leader by a significant majority.
If that can be repeated outside the party, we will end up with a genuine two-party system - if not, there is little use of having a Labour party that is a pale repetition of The Tories.
Carreer politics and self-serving has well and truely naused up any chance we have of real democracy in Britain
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

Tyranny of the minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting

Something Shaw has mentioned before.

As the Daily Mail is held in such high regard, with our "Usual Suspects" quoting it right, left and centre whenever it suits their purposes, here's the rest of the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4258522/A-poisonous-conviction-taking-root-Left.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

That post makes you look a complete arse, Teribus. I find it totally wacky that you can muster the energy to dig up plethora after plethora of past posts then work out how to twist everything with steam coming out of your ears. Calm down, dear. It would be devilishly easy to make a whole career out of provoking you and enjoying the reaction but that just isn't me. I'm finished with that topic now though I'm reserving the right to mention it whenever Keith tells us that he never dissembles or accuses anybody else of misquoting, etc.

I don't recall branding you a racist, Al. Remind me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

I meant the longer post before that last one. As for the latter, that's completely ridiculous. I have never said that people are too "stupid" to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

No trouble Shaw, no effort even - plain simple fact is that you are a liar, and less than 15 minutes searching has resulted in conclusive proof of you being a liar that is now available to post in seconds any time you "hark back" to December 2014 and "Wheatcroft".

Now them Jim, Steve tell us all about Kitchener resigning - got a date for that? Or are you now going to prove that you do stand for deliberate lies being told and spread and "allowed to stand" on this forum Shaw - you set out the stall regarding how principled your stand was now prove it - You won't because you are a hypocrite, a liar and a coward (Pretty much goes for the rest of your little "clique", not one of whom has seen fit to rush to your defence I see).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM

They don't immediately see the need to leap to my defence because (a) they know I'm tough, calm and collected, and (b) because they're not a gang. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM

Rugby time now Shaw, will post your comments about the electorate being too stupid to vote from the Brexit threads later.

Easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:55 AM

That is because the "clique" as you chose to call some people, is not a "clique" or a "mob" or a "little gang"

You can't seem to get that into your head can you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Make sure the word "stupid" is in there! Calling me names diminishes you. You do seem to be a little hot-headed and emotional. Watch those blood vessels of yours. Relax while you're watching the rugby and keep telling yourself that I'm not worth it. Fifteen minutes to kick-off.

Christ, I'm beginning to sound like your psychiatrist! Has he got a beard and sandals?

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

"Now them Jim, Steve tell us all about Kitchener resigning "
You've had it how about telling us about the stupid Irish or the Implanted Muslims or Bin laden not being a businessman or Britain bearing no blame for the outcome of the famine or the Polaris scheme that wasn't.... or all the other subjects you sprinted away from with egg on your face
Any moron can hide behind semantics to suggest that a military resignation caused by incompetence wasn't really a resignation, as you have proven beyond doubt.
Having leapt to the defence of your disturbed friend, you once again find yourself in the klarts and attempt to reopen a long won battel to prove black is white elsewhere
Stick to the rugby, it has all the finesse and sensitivity you lack!!!
Suits you from your bone-head to your regularly placed foot in mouth
Name your lies instead of hiding behind your anonymity and distance - not the heroic behaviour the armed services are looking for
Aaaaabout turn, quiiiick march
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:38 AM

""Now them Jim"
By the way
If I was to sink to your level of debate I would have asked you, didn't you mean "Now then Jim" - whoops, I just did
Hope I'm not there already!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:36 AM

Resignation? Got a date for that Jim? No thought not

Your "Kitchener was forced to resign" was a LIE - deliberately told by you through total ignorance on the subject you decided to comment on. Now Steve Shaw doesn't stand for lies being deliberately but despite the fact that it can be clearly shown that Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 and remained in that post until he was killed when HMS Hampshire struck a mine laid by a German U-boat to the west of Orkney off Marwick Head on 6th June 1916.

By the way Jim, Steve - none of that is my invention - look it up - neither of you will - liars and hypocrites the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:41 AM

No, it was me, Steve. I have never brought it up since but for some reason All likes to. Masochistic tendencies maybe? Anyway, he said that crime rates increase with the influx of east Europeans. I said that was a racist thing to say. Al spat his dummy out and has been doing so ever since. I think I still have the exact exchange somewhere but I would prefer not to embarasss him any further without good reason.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:59 AM

Dave,
You said there was no other explanation. I said there was.

When I posted the explanation that had appeared in all the media, NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY DO IT HAD BEEN PUT FORWARD.

If that is not true, put one up Dave.
I already asked earlier and you seem unable to.

All you put up was suggested reasons why the stats. might lie and they were not doing it, but they were.

I didn't start it
You mean rehashing these long dead debates to try and smear me? Neither did I Dave.
The rest of your little gang did, so you felt you had to join in as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

Dave,
You asked for a reason for the over-representation, not for why they were doing it.

I was asked in that old thread for an explanation of why they did it.
No such explanation had then appeared apart from the one I reported.
If that is not true Dave, produce one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

No I won't look it up, because it is of no interest to me not then, not now, not ever. If it was a choice between looking it up and painting my privates with chocolate before bringing on the dancing ants, I'd choose the latter every time. Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space. It's not that I can't argue with someone like that (a cinch, actually), but that I just don't really feel like it. My purple sprouting is cropping like mad. Gonna have a big plateful with a traditional Spanish tortilla tonight. I have wine, a wood-burning stove and a flat-screen telly. I win!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM

I think I still have the exact exchange somewhere but I would prefer not to embarasss him any further without good reason.

I remember that exchange as well and he is not the one who should be embarrassed by it. Al said he witnessed a theft or robbery by persons he recognized as being of eastern European extraction by their appearance and accents. You immediately branded him a racist and other members of the pack joined in lecturing him on his purported racism. I myself am of full blooded eastern European extraction and I saw absolutely nothing racist in what he said. As Mark Twain said; 'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM

Jim,
describing an entire race or cultur 'potential perverts' is recism in the extreme

No-one has though Jim. It is a smear. A lie.

I did say that we are all implanted to an extent by our culture.
That is neither extreme nor racist.
I did quote a number of very credible people who said that the culture led to the offending, and I said I believed them.
I also asked why you did not. You never answered.
That is not extreme or racist either.

Now, why do we need to have this discussion again?
Why do you want to try and prove anything about me?
Because you can't argue against me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

"You've had it how about telling us about the stupid Irish or the Implanted Muslims or Bin laden not being a businessman or Britain bearing no blame for the outcome of the famine or the Polaris scheme that wasn't.... or all the other subjects you sprinted away from with egg on your face" - Jim Carroll

OK then Jim, following posts from me that support your contentions

1: Where have I said, or made any reference to "the stupid Irish" - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

2: Where have I ever made any reference to Implanted Muslins - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

3: Osama bin Laden may be known throughout the world for many things - businessman ain't one of the them, which was I think my stance, you were putting him forward as businessman of the year.

4: With regard to the Famine where I have ever claimed that Britain was blameless - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

5: What Polaris scheme that wasn't Jim? Been no Polaris since 1996. I must admit when you set out to display your ignorance you do it in "Spades". On the Nuclear subs thread you and your pals were demolished. Now your task is to show me where I lied in that thread - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

If anyone is interested in a prediction? We'll not get a peep out of Carroll, what will be treated to will be yet another highly emotive, ill-informed, deflecting rant.

Great game up at Murrayfield - Well done Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM

Eastern European extraction huh? Don't tempt me to suggest that I've just heard the first good argument ever as to why we should have kept the Iron Curtain.

I don't recall going after Al as a pack. Chapter and verse, pease.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

Hi Jim, how's this for name calling? How's this for ignoring the content of a post or points made in a discussion and just attacking the messenger?

"Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space." - Steve Shaw

From you I take all of those as a compliment. Thank you Mr Shaw you have just proved beyond any question of doubt everything I have ever said about you.

As far as "nitpicking" goes Shaw who was it in February 2017 that started mithering on about the omission of one single word from a long dead thread dating back to December 2014 - sure as f**k wasn't me was it Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:55 AM

Don't tempt me to suggest that I've just heard the first good argument ever as to why we should have kept the Iron Curtain.

And I'm sure you feel the same about the concentration camps too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

"Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space."
Measures pretty small against the examples I put up of your insults over the years, wouldn't you say - want me to putt them up again so we can compare them?
The only difference between your hundreds and Steve's one is your own track record proved Steve's description of you to be fairly accurate (if understated)
You just admitted that yourself by saying you take it as a compliment.
The rst is simple denial of what has been discussed interminably and long proven.
You behvae like an ill mannered lot on this forum and have done so for several years, despite being asked to desist. - it is little wonder people occasionally respond in kind.
Finished here, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

I always understate, Jim. It's my humility, you see. It's my middle name. I could have added "big fibber" to that accurate description of mine (not name-calling). He said something about a single word in Dec 2014. Can't think what he's on about. Don't want to ask him, though, for fear of getting three feet of irrelevant scrolling to do through ancient posts peppered with spittle-flecked rants. Hey, I just used his favourite insulting cliché. Whaddam I like! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:33 PM

"Whaddam I like! 😂" - Steve Shaw

As you asked Shaw? A posturing, lying Prat who has been exposed as such and is now wriggling and trying like hell to escape.

There is not one thing that I have said that you can counter or refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:41 PM

"If anyone is interested in a prediction? We'll not get a peep out of Carroll, what will be treated to will be yet another highly emotive, ill-informed, deflecting rant." - Teribus 25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

And that is exactly what we got from Jim Carroll - 25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM - Predictable or what!!!

So Jim having been given the opportunity you can find no posts of mine that support your idiotic, untrue and outrageous contentions and lies - Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

At half time I would say thats One-Nil to Teribus



He has managed to divert the topic away from the lying of another poster. However I'm sure it wouldn't be for long.


Well played Scotland by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM

Give it a rest, Bill. You look daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 01:41 PM

So Jim having been given the opportunity you can find no posts of mine that support your idiotic, untrue and outrageous contentions and lies - Thank you.
You seem to have developed an acute case of amnesia, if you7 are referring to your bad manners
If not - you supported Keith's racism
Jim Carroll

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For Jim:
No need for reminders Jim I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to Jim - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo Jim?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter Jim-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jim:"
"By the way Jim"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it Jim?"
"Don't worry Jim"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:00 PM

lets face it, we're all 'potential' perverts.

as william wordsworth said, breathes there a soul so dull, he hasn't tried on his wife's knickers?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:35 PM

i suppose Ake, Keith and me - we've got racism and fascism - a bit like some houses have got woodworm.

i'm surprised you dignify our posts with a reply.

i mean i suspect what we are so inherently evil that we dwell in dark regions where all civilised debate is polluted by our evil intentions
.
no doubt about it - we are the baddies! complete stinkers!

however none of this answers the problem, as to what the bloody hell are we going to do to make the labour party electable?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM

Al said he witnessed a theft or robbery by persons he recognized as being of eastern European extraction by their appearance and accents. You immediately branded him a racist and other members of the pack joined in lecturing him on his purported racism. I myself am of full blooded eastern European extraction and I saw absolutely nothing racist in what he said.

Bobad. My Father was Polish and had just dies when the exchange happened. He did not know they were east European and said as much. But that is not what I was referring to anyway. He said crime increased when east Europeans moved in.

Al has not denied that.

Keith is not denying that he thinks British Pakistanis are culturally implanted to rape underage girls.

Says a lot doesn't it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:49 PM

In my case because I'm bothered that you're bothered, Al. I don't remember calling you a racist. And you are a respectable bloke. There's a list of four or five here to whom I wouldn't accord that accolade. OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:01 PM

Big Al Whittle. Sadly Corbyn is not leadership material. Diane Abbot
continuing as an MP will likely drive away potential supporters, and the damage done by Blair will probably take a generation to repair. The entire party requires a rebranding, a massive credibility injection, and some well reasoned policies that Joe public finds attractive. I am afraid my study of the tea leaves predicts failure on all counts.
There is also the problem with many modern mps as to why they exist? Is it to serve their electorate or themselves? For many it would seem to offer a future stepping stone to the nearest revolving door that brings power, wealth and privilege by way of the Lords or industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM

Well, what a good job your opinions aren't very important, let alone gripping, Iains. Don't worry, mate. Trump will always give succour to people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

But that is not what I was referring to anyway. He said crime increased when east Europeans moved in.

I think you've misremembered Dave:


Subject: RE: BS: The Return!....of....New Labour!!!
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 16 May 15 - 11:28 AM

i just tell you something i saw and you say i'm a racist.

No, you didn't, Al. You said you saw some east European immigrants looting a shop. You never told us how you knew they were east European immigrants. If you only assumed they were east European because they were looting then, yes, you are being racist. I always think the best about people and have always found you honest and open before so it was with great regret that I had to condemn the comment as racist. Tell us how you know they were east European and prove it was not a racist comment or accept that it was and apologise for it. Seemples, as the east European animals taking over our TV say...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:47 PM

That was just one of the exchanges bobad. I am happy to dig the other out if you want to persist.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:52 PM

I simply said that you called Al a racist for describing the looters as eastern European and what I posted proves me right, dance however you might.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM

all right lets admit - it says a lot = me and keith believe all Asians have breast implants that make them desire white women.

your character analysis is faultless. breathtaking in its brilliance.

seriously though - what can we do to get another labour politician in number 10.

a conservative administration will hurt the poorest and most disadvantaged people in this nation as long as it persists,

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:30 PM

He's not worth it, Dave. Saturday night is imbibing night. To employ a word I bloody hate, chillax!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:38 PM

We are stuck with Jezza until a rising star shows the ability to unite a horribly split party. If he's still in post in 18 months I'll be (a) surprised, (b) disappointed, (c) expecting doom. At the moment there isn't anybody. And the people who have undermined Jeremy the most are the two-time loser Blairite/Brownites. If anyone ever replaces Jezza, it won't be one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:59 PM

I think Mrs May will make a good job of the Brexit negotiations and will walk the next two or three general elections.
The economy will continue to grow for a period and provide funds to instigate a nationwide retraining programme.
20 years of comparative prosperity will ensue, but the age old problems of capitalism will still be there to be dealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:02 PM

yes i think you're right there Steve. its about personalities. John Smith just seemed to come from nowhere. he transformed labours profile - which had looked unelectable for close on 14 years,

a skilled debater and orator. his attacks from the front bench were so much more assured and ministerial.

lets hope we don't have to wait so long. in the meantime if Corbyn could take some much needed presentation skills.....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:03 PM

Well you know who to vote for then, don't you, Mr Socialist? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:06 PM

That one was directed at akenaton, Al, as I'm sure you realise!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:39 PM

Ah, I see Shaw is home early from his Labour friends of Hamas and Hezbollah meeting tonight. Tell us, what was on the agenda this evening Shaw, was it the "Israel" lobby and its control of world governments or perhaps the Jews' extraordinary powers to have Labour Party members make anti-Semitic statements. Inquiring minds would like to know before they succumb to the effects of their Saturday night imbibing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

You're totally screwed up, mate. You need to study wild flowers a bit more. Not one person is going to come here and support what you've just said. In fact, I challenge them so to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:03 PM

I simply said that you called Al a racist for describing the looters as eastern European and what I posted proves me right, dance however you might.

Yes, you are right. That was ONE of the reasons. Seeing as you think I cannot provide any further evidence here is the same comment I was complaining about from the same thread that you C&Pd the other one from. You seem to be very selective in your quotes but that does not surprise me.

Sorry, Al, it was not me that brought it up and started to pick at old scabs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Return!....of....New Labour!!!
From: Big Al Whittle - PM
Date: 15 May 15 - 05:18 AM

People in my home county Lincolnshire are very. upset at the influx of Eastern Europeans, and the lawlessness they have bought to towns like Boston.

Now, would anyone care to tell me how that can be interpretted as anything but saying that east Europeans bring lawlessness where they go. But of course this adds nothing to any discussion on the Labour party and even though I will be accused of bringing it up, reading back through the thread will provide evidence I did not. But well done for steering the thread away from its point and probably pputtingh the final nail in its coffin.

DtG

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:13 PM

For chrissake, Dave, don't indulge bobad. He has an agenda and is totally blinkered. I can't understand why he's still there, frankly. Still, not my gig.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:23 PM

Still, not my gig.

Lol.....but I am compelled to make it so by some unseen power, must be them dastardly Jews again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM

Sorry, Al, it was not me that brought it up and started to pick at old scabs.

The scabs are on Al and not you, and nothing you have brought forth refutes what I posted.

Now, would anyone care to tell me how that can be interpretted as anything but saying that east Europeans bring lawlessness where they go.

A total misinterpretation of what Al wrote - you're learning well from your pack. Al did not say that, he said that there had been an increase in lawlessness in Boston. You are lying. Can you disprove his claim? If not, STFU.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM

I can see that, Steve, so this will be my last word on the subject. Yes, I can disprove the claim very easily.

"A survey carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2008 found no evidence for suggestions that eastern Europeans were responsible for any crime wave. Peter Fahy, the chief constable who co-authored the report, noted that "you get misunderstandings, you get rumours"."

From This article.

There are plenty more where that came from but why should I be disproving a statement someone else has made? Surely it should be up to them to prove it and anecdotal evidence just does not wash.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM

Syeve.

"
Well, what a good job your opinions aren't very important, let alone gripping, Iains. Don't worry, mate. Trump will always give succour to people like you."


I do not have to rely on opinions, the statistics speak for themselves.

What backs your argument? a couple of dusty tomes on the weeds you insist on babbling on about to make up your daily quota of postings?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-polls-general-election-performance-1935-worst-80-years-a73333

Better trade in your sandals for some hiking boots, the next socialist party is way over the horizon.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 04:44 AM

"Better trade in your sandals for some hiking boots,"
Your Independent link was "not found" Iains - maybe it doesn't like your smug arrogance either!
Interesting to see you've abandoned your back-slapping thread - maybe you'll put up some real arguments instead of your usual insulting hit-and-run pronouncements this time, though you haven't started too well !!!
The Labour Party has been an echo of the Conservatives to one degree or another since the days of Wilson - 'New Labour' was an official announcement that it had cut itself off from its roots and abandoned all its principles
Having a potential war criminal like Blair at its head was a sign that it was prepared to adopt current Parliamentary standards.
There is little point to a Labour Party that echoes Tory Party policy - if that's what turns you on, you may as well vote Tory - they've been exploiting and conning the people for far longer.
Corbyn offered a return to the Labour principles that rebuilt Britain after the war and made the lot of all British people better - he won a majority for that policy despite massive internal attempts to sabotage his efforts (not to mention foreign interference in the shape of lying accusations of Antisemitism)
I have never been a supporter of Labour policy - my first opportunity to vote was for my Labour candidate, Harold Wilson - I did so in the hope that Labour would fight in Parliament for all people and not just the better off - any hope of that gradually eroded away and the Party became a crypto-Tory Party, either in office or in waiting, to a greater and greater degree - in essence, a one-party system of two parties fighting for the same thing.
The only hope for a future for any Labour Party is if it is prepared to become a genuine opposition to the status quo rather than a career-move for people with no interest in the well-being of all the British people - sort of like The Church or The Civil Service.
It is interesting to note what has happened to the Labour Party here in Ireland.
It broke it's back (literally) trying to get seats in The Dail, abandoned all its principles and in doing so, self-destructed at the last election - if the British Labour Party has any sense, it will take note of that lesson.
Luckily, over here, we have a P.R. system that enables the maintenance of some semblance of democracy rather than the first-past-the-post sham.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

"I do not have to rely on opinions, the statistics speak for themselves."

Statistics never "speak for themselves." They require careful interpretation by a real live intelligent human being. So, in your case, better hope for the best and just let them speak for themselves. 😂

"What backs your argument? a couple of dusty tomes on the weeds you insist on babbling on about to make up your daily quota of postings?"

A weed is a plant in the wrong place. It gets in the way of and detracts from the worthwhile plants around it. A nuisance with no value. A total undesirable, fit only for the compost heap. Might even poison the whole crop. The best thing to do is to cut it down or remove it altogether.

You're a bit of a plant of that sort, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:05 AM

Sorry Dave old chap but you are once again dancing around the question put to you but that is the little game of misrepresentation the pack plays so well, isn't it. Anyway I shall not keep you from your terpsichorean diversions any longer so dance on my friend, my point has been made.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM

This today from Dan Hodges:

"the idea that once Corbyn goes, Labour's problems go with him. The shadow Shadow Cabinet – Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis, Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis, Yvette Cooper – are now playing an elaborate game of Ring A Ring O' Roses. Just hide and wait and pray for the plague to pass.

There is no evidence it will. On Friday the extent of the Parliamentary Labour Party's reaction to the Copeland catastrophe was a series of hand-wringing statements that 'the country needs Labour'.

But that is the point. The country has decided it doesn't. Voters see a party that has no coherent policy on Brexit. That has not had a coherent economic or fiscal policy for decades, and as a result has no coherent policy on public service provision. That adopts stances on defence, law and order and immigration that are not just incoherent, but overtly provocative.

And the country has decided something else.

Until Friday morning, Labour MPs believed that they had one thing to fall back on – their Northern safe zone.

Time and again I have been told: 'People in my area hate Corbyn but they hate the Tories even more. Ukip might be a problem. But they won't vote Conservative.'

Northern voters will vote Conservative. Corbyn has not just helped complete the toxification of the Labour brand, he has also begun the process of detoxifying the Tory brand, a process the Prime Minister fully intends to finish.

The virus is not on the doorstep, but is coursing through Labour's system. There is no antidote. There is no cure."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM

Dave,
Keith is not denying that he thinks British Pakistanis are culturally implanted to rape underage girls.

I think no such thing Dave.
I do think that we are all implanted to an extent by our culture.
Your view?
I do note that a lot of very credible people ascribe the over-representation of one demographic to the culture, and when that was the only theory around I believed them.
Did you not believe them? Why not?

But you and I discussed all that in 2011.
Why rehash it now Dave?
Just to be one of the gang?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:30 AM

Ah yes. The Dan Hodges who's in and out of Labour like a yo-yo, who voted for Boris for mayor even when he was in the party, who never misses an opportunity to undermine Corbyn (he supported Yvette Cooper in the leadership election! 😂), who writes for such enlightened organs as the Spectator, the Telegraph and the Mail On Sunday, the archetypal Blairite who ran near-naked through Westminster after losing a bet. That Dan Hodges. Your kind of man, eh, Teribus!😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM

This thread seem to be moving out of this never-ending circle of denials Keith
Please don't wreck it with more.
"Dan Hodges" is writing in The Daily Mail, a newspaper which, along with several other Tory mouthpieces, has set out to wreck any efforts to introduce principled politics into the Labour Party from day one.
What else is he going to write.
Nobody knows how Corbyn's objectives are regarded as a whole by the British people - they've hardly been debated openly in the press - certainly not in bumwipes like the Daily Mail and The Times.
The malaise of cynical disinterest in British politics is now a permanent reality; what the "people think" is now a convenient slogan for those who are happy to keep things as they are.
It remains to be seen whether the North will vote Conservative - the Tories haven't made much headway in Scotland and Brexit has not only made the future uncertain for the British economy, but it still stands to see off both Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the Union - a breakup Britain.
It is already doing massive damage to the Peace Process in the North - yet more violence in the offing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

Yes, that's correct Teribus, The Labour Party have no longer a constituency......and the fault lies with the M P's, they have alienated what was left of their core vote by cosying up to the media and ignoring the debris of industrial re-organisation......they have lost the grass roots, who just like in America, feel no connection to a well off "liberal" elite preaching social equality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

Coooeee, your fetid imagination is working overtime again the is no "gang" or "little gang" or "clique" or "mob" It's all in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:34 AM

well its ten years since I was in Boston, but what people were saying is that there was no point in reporting crimes because the police never did anything.   they were overwhelmed, but of course its like in education - no one ever admits to a problem - because the bosses always turn it round and say that's cos your crap at your job. Its an easy out.   far easier to say to say theres no problem.

Before you keep ballsing on about everybody I talked to being a racist, dave. has it ever occurred to you to go to the town where they had the highest turnout in favour of Brexit in the country.

Just go there. tell them they're all talking bollocks.

This bloody finger pointing and casting the first stone is SO easy on mudcat. And it has buggered up this once wonderful site. Certainly it has made rational debate - in this case on a subject I care deeply about - the party I have voted for all my life totally impossible. Self righteous hypocrites have turned this once wonderful crossroads into a wasteland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:34 AM

Dave, in this post you suggest that the over-representation might be due to the cultural attitude to females.
Same as me then.

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:44 PM

At the risk of becoming tarred as a Muslim hating racist I came across this article by Khaled Diab, a Brussels based Egyptian (I think) journalist who often contributes to that bastion of right wing hatred, The Guardian.

I found it interesting that the piece states quite clearly -

So, which Arabs have the most negative views of western women? Well, probably those from the most conservative societies. "From my personal experience, the worst Arab men I found were the ones from Saudi Arabia," a journalist with a leading Portuguese newspaper told me. "They think that all foreign women are prostitutes and they try to treat them like that."

Maybe this goes some way to expaining the over representation of certain people in this crime? Maybe it doesn't. Maybe just by saying that any group leans towards any sort of poor attitude I am showing my obviously right wing, racist attitudes. Or maybe I am just saying that some people have the wrong idea and need to be educated. How should I know? I am pretty sure reading most posters on this thread won't educate me...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

Jim, what is your verdict on Dave?

"Maybe just by saying that any group leans towards any sort of poor attitude I am showing my obviously right wing, racist attitudes."

Is that your view of him Jim?


Maybe this goes some way to expaining the over representation of certain people in this crime?

So he, like me, is prepared to accept that they might be doing it because of their culture.

We are all implanted by our culture, so his views were identical to mine on this.

Why have you not been hounding him over that for the last six years as you have me Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 08:07 AM

Interesting post of Dave's, from six years ago, you came up with Keith. I thought I remembered him as being a reasonable sort before he started running with the pack. Just goes to show the susceptibility of some to peer pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 08:09 AM

Ain't no "pack" either.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 08:42 AM

"Jim, what is your verdict on Dave?"
I've suggested you let this thread move off this circular argument - you wish to continue use it to promote your racism
I certainly have no intention of participating in your spiteful attempt to pit one member against another
Take your disgusting behaviour elsewhere
You really are the pits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 08:49 AM

Touché, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

"Touché, Keith!"
Never mind Keith - toy have the God of the Trolls on your side
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 09:36 AM

Jim, you decided to dredge this thing up.
You hoped to discredit me with it.
Even with your whole gang helping you failed.
Even though the mods allowed it to run to a conclusion, you failed.
You had to lie to make a case against me.

Dave and I both recognised the over representation.
Dave and I both said it could be the culture that makes them do it.
No-one denies that we are all implanted to an extent by ur culture.
You have no case against me.

I hope you have learned the lesson and will not make these tired old false accusations against me again.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

Believe me, Keith, you don't need anyone else other than your good self to discredit you, though your own pack/mafia/gang/coterie/co-conspirators/mob/team/clique/faction/set/cabal do a damn good job too.

Coo, "cabal." Now why didn't I think of that one before!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

"You lose."
Two peaple decide 300 criminals in Britain prove an over-representation from a statment of someone referring to the situation in Saudi Arabia.
You sad, sick man
Not that it is important, Khaled Diab is a pro-Israeli blogger campaigning to persuade the Palestinians not to press their demands on land return or the return of Exiles to their homes.
NOT SOMEONE I WOULD WISH TO CONSULT ABOUT BRITISH MUSLIMS !!
For christ's sake Keith - end this nonsense before you humilaite yourself even further.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM

Frankly professor the only loser on here is yourself, a pathetic racist, bigoted little nobody.

I should feel sorry for you, don't I can't raise that much interest in your childlike postings.

You really are a sad little man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

"Nobody knows how Corbyn's objectives are regarded as a whole by the British people - they've hardly been debated openly in the press - certainly not in bumwipes like the Daily Mail and The Times." - Jim Carroll

From Dan Hodges again (Same article) how Labour were regarded by the electorate in Copeland:

"In Copeland, Labour suffered what respected BBC analyst John Curtice said was the worst result for an Opposition 'in the whole history of post-war British by- elections'. Which, if anything, understates the scale of the defeat.

Faced with the possible closure of a local maternity unit, Labour distributed leaflets warning that if voters didn't back Corbyn's party they would die. The people of Copeland opted for death.

You just couldn't get a clearer demonstration Labour having held the seat for how long??

Note once again Shaw and Carroll attack the messenger they do not address the message.

The Conservatives have made no impact North of the Border?? Are you serious Jim?? They have made so much ground that they now are the main opposition Party North of the Border.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

So far, as far as I can see, the only people who have really shown themselves up on this thread have been Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll who have both been exposed as liars guilty of baseless smears who when offered clear evidence they persist in their lies and falsehoods.

Meanwhile Raggy the little hyena-like lightweight hanger on chips in with nothing of any consequence, bleating about there being no gang while timing his pointless interjections in support of his "mates" to demonstrate that clearly there is a "gang" or even a "cabal" Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 11:55 AM

Credit where it is due Terrikins, you have supported a dishonest racist, bigot at every opportunity.

This obviously says as much as about you as it says about him.

I honestly dislike this phrase but I relucantly will use it anyway ..... .... you l....

Nah can't be bothered

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 12:03 PM

300 criminals in Britain prove an over-representation

In the particular crime of on-street grooming there is a massive over-representation of one demographic.
That is a fact Jim.

Guardian,
"Because a disproportionate number of them are British Pakistani – just like me."
So there is an over-representation.

Guardian,
"of the 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men,"
They are less than 2% 0f the population, so the over-representation is massive.

Dave and I were right and you are wrong Jim.
You lose.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 12:05 PM

" you have supported a dishonest racist, bigot at every opportunity." - Raggy

Now then Raggy if you are going to spout such bile you must have substantive grounds for saying things. "Dishonest" how, where show us all. "Racist" where? show us examples. "Bigot" in what way bigoted show us clear examples? You have decided not to do so, primarily because you can't. You know that, I know that, damn near everybody who reads this forum knows so your last post is just another in a long line of meaningless, baseless accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 12:20 PM

"From Dan Hodges again (Same article)"
Would that be the Dan Hodges who is writing for the 'progressive' Daily Mail?
As I said, there is little reason to support two Tory Parties - if Labour doesn't return to being a principled party there has no reason to exist and Britain will remain a one-party State.
Not even the best friend of the present system would describe it as health as far as the British People as a whole are concerned.
To judge the importance of a nation party on the result of a bye Election is insane.
Perhaps the Tory Party should abandon any effort to win seats in Scotland and save time and money!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 12:30 PM

ANOTHER VIEW
"You lose."
Utterly mindless
"Dave and I were right "
Equally mindless in trying to set one member against another
What were you saying about not dragging years old statement up
Dave seems to have recanted his support for that view - you continue with your racism
Attempting to set one member against another in the way you regguarly do is an example of your ruthless fanaticism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

The Guardian article you "quoted" from professor also stated quite clearly that 95% of people on the Manchester Sex Offenders Register were WHITE.

The Asian population of Manchester is 6.5%

Understanding from YOUR quoted article the Asian population, together with the Afro Carribean and Oriental population make up 5% of offenders.

What reason can you give us for the over-represented number of WHITE offenders.

I shall look forward to your prevarication.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:03 PM

Raggytash, I think you will find that Keith was addressing the singular crime of street grooming and associated abuse of minors.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:12 PM

okay chapter and verse.

10 years ago, an old school friend invited me back for a meal. he'd never left our hometown , Boston, Lincs. as a surprise he invited two of my old classmates, and their wives.

during the evening everyone asked me about where i lived and everyone - all boston residents said that their lives had been adversely affected by the influx of east european tmmigrants. mainly just women who were working desk jobs where they got treated rudely, no longer felt the streets and public areas were safe or pleasant.

it transpired one of those friends ran a quid shop on t'the green'. a market area in boston, which has never been green, but that's what its called. i sad okay, before i go home tomorrow - i'll check out your shop.

so the next day i called in and bought some things, and we were standing on the market area talking to our shopkeeper friend, before driving home.

whist we were standing there, three or four young very tall and rather strangely dressed young men ran into the shop.   i asked who they were.. i was told they were eastern european looters. how he divined they were easter european, i have no idea. perhaps he knew them previously.

i said, call the police. iwas told there was no point in doing so. it was a quid shop. they could take what they wanted. he was not going to risk his staff by resisting , or presumably reprisal.

i was upset - it was a town my dad had policed for twenty five years. does it sound to you as though the influx of eastern europeans had adversely affected the situation.

it pissed me off at the time to have my simple anecdote labelled as racist. however what pisses me off even more is that bloody abuse is still going on, and it's just vandalism of a noble enterprise like mudcat.

to characterise Farage's scrupulous adherence to democratic process over 25 years to attempt stop the EU looting the british economy as 'the tramp of nazi jackboots'....it precludes sensible debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM

You really have found a friend in Dan Hodges, haven't you, Teribus? Don't shoot the messenger? What if "Messenger Dan," a Blairite to the core (the sort of person you've relentlessly denigrated for years here) is a complete flip-flopping twit? Maybe you should sign him up to your cabal! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM

I do note that a lot of very credible people ascribe the over-representation of one demographic to the culture

I agree Keith and I agree with the point made by Khaled Diab but treating women as prostitutes does not equate to grooming young girls nor was the demographic mentioned British Pakistani. They were Saudi Arabians. But, as I keep saying and as you keep misinterpreting, there are other and equally valid reasons for any over-representation. And no, Jim. I have not 'recanted' because I always said there were many factors. I just believe that the over-representation, if indeed there is such a thing, is very complex and I will not rule out any of factor until disproven. Unlike Keith who rules out all but the cultural implant one.

Al, I have made my point to Bobad. There is no point in continuing that discussion any further. What I will say to you is that you said was People in my home county Lincolnshire are very. upset at the influx of Eastern Europeans, and the lawlessness they have bought to towns like Boston. There is very strong evidence that an influx of east Europeans does not cause a crime wave so, sorry, the good people of Lincolnshire are are mistaken. Did you read the article I linked?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:47 PM

"but treating women as prostitutes does not equate to grooming young girls"
Nor does what happens in saudi Arabia apply to British Moslems Dave
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 02:10 PM

"What if "Messenger Dan," a Blairite to the core (the sort of person you've relentlessly denigrated for years here) is a complete flip-flopping twit?" - Shaw

Well if he WAS a twit Shaw it would be ever so easy for someone of your self-proclaimed education and intelligence to refute or disprove what said "Messenger Dan" says. But you can't do that can you Shaw? And I would guess that in being in a position to comment and observe what is going on "Messenger Dan" is far better informed and clued up than some loutish, posturing liar down in Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM

Ake, please allow the professor to answer for himself.

The very article he "quoted" from stated very clearly that 95% of people on the Sex Offenders Register in Manchester are WHITE.

Given that the Asian population of Manchester is 6.5%, they together with the Afro Caribbean and Oriental population still only make up 5% of people on the Sex Offenders Register.

Thus the white population is, to use his term, over represented in the figure.

I ask again professor how do you account for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 02:57 PM

""Messenger Dan" is far better informed and clued up than some loutish, posturing liar down in Cornwall."
Youve just said that the press all tell lies and support the establishment and it was fine by you if Trump banned them all from White House news conferences
Make up your fucking mind you mad fascist
You really are the Full Monty as far as right wing extremism goes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Polls show Labour Party would win only 190 seats at general election – the worst performance since 1935

Britain's top pollster, Professor John Curtice, crunches the stats to forecast the Labour leader's fortunes in 2020.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-polls-general-election-performance-1935-worst-80-years-a73333

There you are jimmy and steve. Notice shaw the man interpreting the statistics is a professor.I have a bit more confidence in what he has to say than your pathetic warblings.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM

Link maker not working in this instance.
: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-polls-general-election-performance-1935-worst-80-years-a73333

I assume arrogant was the next word out of the idea box after insecure.
If you want to insult people each time you post jimmy try and ring the changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM

right! the guardian thinks everyone in boston are all subject to racist delusions regarding their situation. you agree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:09 PM

right! the guardian thinks everyone in boston are all subject to racist delusions regarding their situation. you agree with them.

Not at all, Al. As you seem to have some trouble with comprehension I shall repeat the point I made before. Absolutely fuck all to do with the Guardian apart from they reported it.

"A survey carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2008 found no evidence for suggestions that eastern Europeans were responsible for any crime wave. Peter Fahy, the chief constable who co-authored the report, noted that "you get misunderstandings, you get rumours"."


Now do you get it? The police themselves say that east Europeans are not responsible for any crime wave your fellow countymen see.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:29 PM

"Britain's top pollster," eh?   Bwahahaha! Now there's an admirable profession, going from poll forecasts in recent years. If you really want to appeal to authority, do make sure that you choose an authority worth appealing to!😂

By the way, any chance of telling us who decided that he was "Britain's top pollster?" 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:57 PM

Don't sweat it Al, he's talking from pure ignorance of the situation in Boston. The source he is referencing refers to the overall crime rate in the UK - apples and oranges and the usual misrepresentation from the usual suspects in order to smear good people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 06:35 PM

why would you disbelieve me and believe some police chief who may have any number of reasons - budgetary or political toadying etc. - to lie?

what right did you have to say my story was told for reasons of racism?

have you any concept of how offensive that was?

the trouble is that in the inflated language that you people have bought to this forum, such insults are the lingua franca.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 06:56 PM

"Britain's top pollster, Professor John Curtice, crunches the stats to forecast the Labour leader's fortunes in 2020."
John Curtice also points out the other factors involved in the election results, including Corbyn's opposition to the Nuclear programme which would have an effect of Copeland.
He comments that this would not necessarily be a factor in other parts of Britain.
"There you are jimmy and steve."
Try not to talk to people and remember you are a mental midget Iaians
People with far more knowledge and experience have had their fingers burned on this forum by forgetting their place.
You really are an obnoxiously smug bastard, aren't you - what a pity your contributions don't live up to your posturing - especially regarding your supporst for a mass murder and torturer.
Christ - what a team - racists, fascists and moronic bullies who think they know more than anyone else after five minutes posting.
Can we just make something clear Dave, despite Keith's protestations, hei claims of "over-representation are just the icing on the cake.
His main claim to fane is "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
However the 300 odd criminals "over-representing" the Muslim population pans out, that id the one that takes the most Oscars for all time best racist statements
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:51 PM

They're the cabal, Jim, not a team. I'm watching a real team on telly tomorrow night, Liverpool FC. This lot are not a team. Teams support each other. This lot sit with buttocks clenched in embarrassment as other members of their squad make fools of themselves. You hardly ever see them supporting each other and when they do it's desperate stuff. Have you signed up Dan yet, Teribus? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 08:39 PM

In the meantime, the sad news that Gerald Kaufman has passed away. Hardly the biggest leftie ever in Labour, but a great fighter for the less-privileged and a solid Labour man of principle through thick and thin.

From the Beeb.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, Labour MP for Manchester Gorton and Father of the House of Commons, has died aged 86.

■   Obituary: Gerald Kaufman

Sir Gerald became an MP in north-west England in 1970, first for the Manchester Ardwick constituency and then for Manchester Gorton, which he had served since 1983.
He was a junior minister between 1974 and 1979, and held a number of senior shadow cabinet posts through the 1980s, before returning to the backbenches in the early 1990s.

Sir Gerald was a member of the Jewish Labour Movement and was known for his criticism of Israel, calling senior politicians from the country "war criminals" in 2002.
Mr Corbyn said: "Gerald came from a proud Jewish background. He always wanted to bring peace to the Middle East and it was my pleasure to travel with him to many countries.
"He loved life and politics. I will deeply miss him, both for his political commitment and constant friendship."
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell tweeted: "Sad to hear of Gerald Kaufman's death. He was a tremendously dedicated servant of his constituency and our party. A man of absolute principle."
And Commons Speaker John Bercow called him an "outstanding representative" and a "passionate campaigner for social justice, here in Britain and around the world"

He was a Jewish Labour MP who hated what the Israeli regime were visiting on ordinary Jewish people in Israel and had he been here he would have cheerfully demolished the dismal, bigoted politics of the likes of Keith and bobad whose attitude is typical of those who perpetuate insecurity via discrimination in the region. He was measured, witty and consistent. A good old boy in most regards.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 09:40 PM

Poor old Kaufman, RIP, it seems like he hasn't been in control of his mental faculties for quite some time now, senility is a dreadful disease.

Veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman has accused Israel of fabricating the recent knife attacks in the country and claimed the Conservative Party has been influenced by "Jewish money".

Sir Gerald caused controversy earlier this year when he said that Israel uses the Holocaust to justify murdering Palestinians.

In 2011 he apologised after greeting fellow Jewish MP Louise Ellman by muttering "here we are, the Jews again" when she rose to speak in the Commons.

A Labour Party spokesman said: "The views as reported do not reflect the views of the party."

John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: "These are the incoherent ramblings of an ill-informed demagogue."

Labour MP Ruth Smeeth, vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, echoed the call for action to be taken by the party. She said: "I think that these are not just unfortunate, but these are disgraceful remarks from the Father of the House and they cannot go unanswered."

Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said: "These are despicable statements which support antisemitic conspiracy theories, and Gerald should withdraw them immediately."

Mark Gardner, director of communications at the Community Security Trust, said: "The language invites antisemitic interpretation about Jews, money and controlling politicians; and the belated hand wringing from others in the room is meaningless if they did not actually protest when the remarks were made."

Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush said: "We condemn Sir Gerald's outrageous comments.

"We also invite the Labour Party to initiate disciplinary proceedings to investigate his disgraceful words."

The Jewish Chronicle

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:38 AM

Jim Carroll - 26 Feb 17 - 02:57 PM

""Messenger Dan" is far better informed and clued up than some loutish, posturing liar down in Cornwall." - a quote from one of my posts (Teribus)

Which elicited this from poor old confused and frothed up Jim:

"You've just said that the press all tell lies and support the establishment and it was fine by you if Trump banned them all from White House news conferences

Make up your fucking mind you mad fascist"

Never said anything of the sort Jim - If you think I have then please feel free to quote the post of mine where I have stated that. I have made no comment at all regarding Trump banning the press from the White House. Yet more baseless Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit", it would appear that you are inveterate liar to whom the truth is a complete and utter stranger.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:42 AM

,I>"A survey carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2008 found no evidence" - DtG

2008!!! that is nine years ago Gnome - a great deal has changed since then.

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

Has it, Teribus? I suppose you can provide us with more up to date evidence that east Europeans cause crime waves then?

And Al, have you any idea how offensive it is to suggest that east Europeans are more likely to be criminals than others to someone whose Polish Father had just died?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:33 AM

"2008!!! that is nine years ago Gnome - a great deal has changed since then."
And no evidence has been found since then
"Which elicited this from poor old confused and frothed up Jom:"
Will you kindly fuck off with your arrogant ranting - it impresses nobody
You have always dismissed anything from the press that does not suit your extremist agenda - submarines, Bin Laden..... all "made up Carroll shit"
You wre given links to article afte atricle about Bin Laden and it was all wrong as far as yoiu are concerned and here you are defending one of Britain's most popular bumwipes
If you feel free to call someone a "loutish posturing liar" don't be surprised when they feel free to express their opinion of you
You are a crude, brutish, ill-bred, ill mannered ignoramus who substitutes vitriolic abuse for argument in the hope of covering up your lack of knowledge
Give it a rest and stop polluting this forum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:42 AM

Dave,
Unlike Keith who rules out all but the cultural implant one.

You lie about me.
When I said I believed that view, it was the only one around.
I have a completely open mind to alternatives.

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM
I think the point is that British Pakistanis, and I only use the term to be consistent with the thread, are over-represented in these cases. I have no doubt as to the veracity of Keiths figures.
......
The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:54 AM

So then Keith. Do you now accept that there may be other reasons for the over-representation?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:56 AM

Rag,
The very article he "quoted" from stated very clearly that 95% of people on the Sex Offenders Register in Manchester are WHITE.

If you read the old thread you will see that I always acknowledged that other sexual crimes had a different pattern.
This whole discussion is about on street grooming.

Jim is out on a limb in denying the over-representation.
Both Steve and Dave acknowledged the truth of it.
Who are you going to back Rag?

Jim,
His main claim to fane is "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"

Why wouldn't I believe all those credible and mostly Pakistani people?
Why didn't you?

However the 300 odd criminals "over-representing" the Muslim population

Jim, Pakistanis form less than 2% of the population.
If they form 2% or more of any group they are over-represented.
Guardian,
"of the 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men,"
That is 87%, so the over-representation is massive!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:59 AM

Another rant from liar Carroll.

So you obviously could not find any post of mine where I "just said that the press all tell lies and support the establishment and it was fine by you if Trump banned them all from White House news conferences"

Got me confused with somebody else?

On this thread Carroll I have not just called someone a "loutish, posturing liar" I have actually proved it. On a similar vein I exposed you as a barefaced liar (i.e. someone who knowingly and deliberately states something that is false and untrue) and am utterly amazed that despite obvious documented evidence you still persist in your lies - Jim Carroll right the rest of the world wrong - and you have got the gall to complain about arrogance?

How about this for talking down to people:

"Try not to talk to people and remember you are a mental midget Iaians
People with far more knowledge and experience have had their fingers burned on this forum by forgetting their place." - Jim Carroll

Oh yes you're the prat who believes in there being a "pecking order" on this forum aren't you? That was what you meant when you mention people "forgetting their place" - Your new place Jom - that of a proven liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM

Dave,
So then Keith. Do you now accept that there may be other reasons for the over-representation?

I always did. As I said at the time, I believed that one " only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

As you said, "I did, incidentaly, put up what I felt were reasonable reasons for such an over-representation earlier but only Keith chose to respond. And then to only agree that he, like myself, did not have an answer! "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:08 AM

Interesting article on the BBC yesterday and today outlining alleged systematic abuse of children in Australia.

Link

I doubt many Pakistani men will be found amongst the perpetrators, lots of so called christians though.

I wonder if it is a cultural thing and that we need to be wary of all men who claim to be Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

"When I said I believed that view, it was the only one around."
It wasn't around until you made it up Keith
All the people you claim to have quoted actuallty said that there was know known reason for the behaviour of a tiny handful of criminals (you have never had the honesty to acknowledge how few there are) yet you chose to condemn an entire cultre of one and a half million people with your racist smear.
I don't lie - I put up exactly what you said and will continue to do so as long as you continue to call me a liar
They wre yoiu exact words and you have continued to defend them - it is still your view - and you still refuse to provide quotes for your dishonest claims.
Gerald Kaufman
A "self hating Jew" presumably
Loise Ellman
Vice Chairman of The Friends of Israel
Mark Gardner
A Pro-Israeli activist opposed to any criticism of Israel's behaviour of the Palestinian People
Ruth Smeeth
Pro Israel supporter who attended one of Netenayahu's meetings at which she openly supported his most racist and most criticised attacks on the Muslim people
All good, upright, honest and trustworthy people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM

Coooeeee professor, there is no "little gang" I don't have to "back" anyone.

Remind us what you posted "Don I now believe" wasn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM

Rag, child abuse is found everywhere.
I doubt many Christian men will be found amongst these perpetrators,

Pakistan child sex abuse: Seven arrested in Punjab - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33843765

10/08/2015 · Seven people are arrested in eastern Pakistan on suspicion of involvement in a widespread child sexual abuse and extortion scandal.

Pakistan horrified over child abuse ring revelations ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/11795388/Pakistan...
10/08/2015 · Pakistan horrified over child abuse ring revelations Reports more than 270 children aged as young as 12 abused by gang that would then blackmail their ...

7 charged in Pakistan child abuse case - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/asia/pakistan-child-abuse/index.html

12/08/2015 · Seven people accused of blackmailing children into making sex videos and then threatening to sell the footage have been arrested in Pakistan's Punjab province.

Pakistan's wall of silence on child abuse - Home - BBC News
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/248219.stm

A new report on attitudes to child sex abuse in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province paints a horrifying picture of widespread abuse. The report shows that many of ...

Child sexual abuse ring busted in Pakistan
CNN

1:06
Child abuse scandal shocks Pakistan
REUTERS

2:43
Pakistan child abuse activists push for government action
MSN

4:09
Fighting child abuse in Pakistan
One News Page
See more videos of pakistan child abuse
Pakistan's Hidden Shame - All 4
www.channel4.com/programmes/pakistans-hidden-shame

Powerful documentary about the sexual exploitation and abuse of many thousands of poor and vulnerable children in Pakistan's north-western city of Peshawar

Child Sex Abuse Steps Out Of The Shadows In Pakistan
www.rferl.org/a/pakistan-child-sex-abuse/25170821.html

Out of the shadows and into the public eye; activists say the number of reported sex-abuse cases involving children rose by more than 20 percent in Pakistan last year ...

Pakistan child sex abuse scandal: Hundreds of children ...
www.ibtimes.co.uk › Crime

Pakistan child sex abuse scandal: Hundreds of children filmed being sexually abused in the Punjab
Pakistan stumbles upon its 'biggest' child abuse case ...
www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/pakistan-stumbles-biggest-child-sex...

Officials in the Pakistani state of Punjab have called for a federal inquiry into what it called the largest-ever child abuse case in the South Asian country's ...
Why millions of Pakistani children are falling prey to ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2739799/Why-millions-Pakistani...

Pakistan is home to 1.5m street children, 90% of whom have been abused; Naeem, 13, from Peshawar was gang-raped by four men and is ... Sexual abuse in Pakistan is rife.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM

"Oh yes you're the prat who believes in there being a "pecking order" "
I didn't till I came across yuo and Iainas
" I have actually proved it"
You have never proved anything because you refuse to substantiate anything - they are all your opinions - nothing more
"So you obviously could not find any post of mine ....."
If you care to read what I actually wrote (not one of your habits) I pointed out that I mistook your posting for one of Ake's - I went on to point out that there was little to distinguish between the two of you.
Perhaps I should apologise - to Ake
He, at least is just slippily and evasively dishonest - you are bullying, blustering and thuggish
For all Ake's faults, that cannot be applied to him
My comments about Iains was a response to his continuing insulting and patronising behaviour to those who have the temerity not to agree with him - if started in his early postings, has continued and looks as if it will do so until somebody stops him - mine was an effort to do so.
One lout on these threads is sufficient
"Missed a bit in my reply to you Keith
Why wouldn't I believe all those credible and mostly Pakistani people?"
We don't believe them because they didn't saY it
Why don't you believe all those prominent people, MPs, community leaders, Musilim activists in the community..... who said Jack Staw's statement was a load of shit?
There mere many hundreds more of them than the few you invented?
Are yuo a racist or what (rheororical question - of course)
Now - those quote - who described All male British Pakistanis as culturally implanted potential perverts
A quote or a link will do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

In which case, Keith, I was wrong to say you believed it was the only reason.

So, before we go down another wrong track, you believe the over-representation could be due to

1. British Pakistanis being culturally implanted to commit these crimes
2. That demographic is also over-represented in the taxi trade which has the ability to commit these crimes easily
3. The police are concentrating more on that demographic
4. That demographic is not as good at hiding it's crimes as others
5. Other reasons as yet undiscovered

If do. why then did you state that the other reasons were only excuses and did not explain the 'real' over-representation?

Incidentally, I think it is significant that the figures you quote only start in, what was it, 1998? British Pakistanis have been around a lot longer than that. Why would the over-representation only start to happen less than 20 years ago?

DtG



DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:02 AM

" Rag, child abuse is found everywhere. I doubt many Christian men will be found amongst these perpetrators" from the professor at 04.14 am 27.2.17

That I presume was a knee jerk response from someone who had not actually read and/or understood the article.

The widespread abuse was carried out in schools run by religious orders and charities. Some estimates quoted on the news yesterday claim that over 60% of the children were abused.

Those religious schools and charities were CHRISTIAN. Is there something within this culture which leads them to abuse?

If so we need to look carefully at all so called Christians .... don't we.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

You really are wasting your time with Keith's engrained racism Dave
He was given this at the time and chose to ignore it
No cultural link and not exclusively Muslim - just young opportunist criminals as Jack Straw pointed out.
Jim Carroll

From the Independent - four years ago
The Oxford child sex abuse verdict highlights a cultural problem, but not a specifically Muslim one
Parallels between the Oxford case and last year's case in Rochdale raise some difficult questions. But the issues are much more complex than they seem
The distressing details of the Oxford child abuse case raise echoes of a similar case last year, involving the grooming of children for sex in Rochdale. In both, under-age white girls were the victims. All or most of the perpetrators were Asian men. The girls were from vulnerable backgrounds, including local authority care homes. Drugs, alcohol and violence were used to coerce the girls – and in both cases other men paid to use the girls for sex.

Many people will be tempted to ask why lessons were not learnt from Rochdale which might have shortened the ordeal of the girls in Oxford.

In fact, for all the similarities, there are key differences between the cases, which, despite the time-lag in the trials, were actually taking place over the same period. The Rochdale abuse was from 2008-09. The Oxford ordeal stretched over eight years from 2004 to 2012.

The greatest difference lay in the motivation of the two groups of abusers, according to Mohammed Shafiq, of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation, who was one of the first Asian community leaders to acknowledge that a disproportionate number of the men involved in on-street grooming were British Pakistanis. "The Rochdale abusers were taxi drivers and takeaway workers using the girls for quick sex. When they took money from other men to have sex with the girls the amounts were around £20-£30 a time," says Mr Shafiq.

"Oxford is much more to do with money. The men exploiting the girls were charging others £200-£600 a time and bringing eight to 10 men a day into hotels and restrooms. It was much more organised."

That view is echoed by Alyas Karmani, a Muslim imam and psychologist, who works in the Pakistani community in major UK cities to combat attitudes that tolerate or encourage sexual violence against women. "It's important to understand the different pathways in and out of the offending behaviour," he says. "The ringleader in Rochdale was a serial paedophile but the men in that case were not paedophiles in the classic sense," he says. "They were not looking for under-age girls; they took the opportunity when they were presented with it.

"Oxford is a more gang-related crime. They were younger men, linked to drug-dealing and financial crime along the M4 corridor."

In the Oxford case, the sexual violence was more extreme. One of the victims described what she had undergone as "torture sex". Another was told the gang would cut off her head if she did not perform oral sex on them all.

"In the Oxford case the humiliation and torturing was much more sadistic," says Mr Karmani, who works with the police in such cases. The detail was so gruesome that the media only published about 10 per cent of what the police uncovered.

By contrast, in the Rochdale case some of the girls were so confused by the nature of their abuse that during the trial they were still insisting the men involved loved them.

What both cases highlight is the progress that has been made against child sexual exploitation – and the work yet to be done. The Muslim community, which was so long in denial about the acts committed by a few of its members, has begun to confront the problem. "We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men," says Mr Karmani. But the problem is not confined to young Asian men. It is nothing to do with Muslim culture, he says, though that culture does have traditions that can help counter such thinking. Some of his strategies, as an imam, are straightforwardly religious. "That thinking is not compatible with Islam," he says. But it also trades on the strong family traditions of Asian culture. "'Would you want someone to do that to your sister?' I ask them."

And Muslim community leaders are anxious that their acknowledgement of the problem should not focus disproportionate blame on British Asians. "Child sex abuse happens in all communities," says Mohammed Shafiq. "The white abusers tend to be loners or do it online, or are friends of the victim's family. It's only in on-street grooming that there is an over-representation of Pakistani men."

Police, social workers, academics and children's charity workers agree. Greater Manchester Police, in whose area the Rochdale offences took place, says 95 per cent of the men on its sex offenders register are white. Just five per cent are Asian. Wendy Shepherd, child sexual exploitation project manager with Barnardo's in the north of England, says that most abusers are white and most child sex exploitation happens in the home.

Asians can be the victims too. Mr Karmani cites the case of a Bangladeshi father he has worked with whose daughter was being groomed by a Turkish gang who were giving her heroin. "In the cases which have been given a high profile by the media Asian men have been caught because the group they have operated in is big and blatant," he says.

But most of the lessons that need to be learnt are among state authorities. "Social workers and police failed to take victims seriously: they said they had made an 'informed choice' which was wrong," says Jim Taylor, who has taken over as chief executive at Rochdale Borough Council. "The Council and other agencies missed opportunities to offer assistance."

In Rochdale, that learning process is well underway. Disciplinary investigations are being conducted into the culpability of three individuals who have been suspended pending the inquiry. An independent review of processes and procedures has been set up under an outside expert. But even before it reports a number of new measures have been put in place.

"We've appointed a new leadership team with a wealth of relevant experience," says Mr Taylor. It is led by Gladys Rhodes White who some years ago set up a pioneering project called Engage to prevent and prosecute child sex abuse in nearby Blackburn. The team has re-examined the files of the 47 victims from the original cases and two more sets of prosecutions are in the pipeline.

"We've had awareness workshops for 10,000 children in every local secondary school and 1,500 council staff have had training," says Mr Taylor. "And we have a Child Sexual Exploitation car staffed by police and youth workers patrolling hotspots."

Rochdale social services now have a single point of contact for all referrals of concern on child sex abuse. Local taxi-drivers are more regulated, with Criminal Records Bureau checks having been made more consistent. There is a monthly forum where police, youth service, youth offending team, social workers and private providers exchange information. A scheme to help police share data across all 10 Manchester boroughs is being investigated, though it is encountering data protection problems. "There's still a lot to do," says Jim Taylor, "but we're improving rapidly."

There is more to do in the Muslim community. "There's a disconnect between the elders and the young people," says Mr Karmani. It reaches across poor Asian communities in the northern mill towns and comparatively affluent Muslim communities in places like Oxford. "We need better youth programmes but there's not enough funding to be pro-active," he said.

But Muslims want action in wider society. "There are serious questions to be asked about the behaviour of the owners of the hotels who allowed these men to check in with young girls and then have multiple visitors to their rooms," says Mr Shafiq.

Mr Taylor wants to see other changes. A council from another part of the country can send a child in its care to a private children's home elsewhere, where care is cheaper. Rochdale has a large number of outsiders in such homes. But those far-away councils can manage the care of that child "by remote" without any duty to inform or liaise with Rochdale social services. That must change. So must the fact that Ofsted doesn't have to inform local social services of the results of its inspections of smaller care homes

But responsibility to stamp out child abuse must go far wider, says Ms Rhodes White. "I want the message out there to the public. If you see something not right, like older men with young girls buying drinks and gifts, don't be afraid to report it." That responsibility cannot be limited to one community or one set of public officials. It is the job, she says, of us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:19 AM

OK Carroll here is your latest invention and lie exposed:

Post 1

Jim Carroll - 26 Feb 17 - 02:57 PM

""Messenger Dan" is far better informed and clued up than some loutish, posturing liar down in Cornwall."
Youve just said that the press all tell lies and support the establishment and it was fine by you if Trump banned them all from White House news conferences
Make up your fucking mind you mad fascist

As the "messenger Dan" quote was mine and you make no other reference to anyone else then the "You've" must also refer to me. Only thing was I never said anything of the sort - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - a lie in other words.

Post 2 Teribus - 27 Feb 17 - 01:38 AM I draw your attention to the FACT that I never said any such thing.

Post 3

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:33 AM

"2008!!! that is nine years ago Gnome - a great deal has changed since then."
And no evidence has been found since then
"Which elicited this from poor old confused and frothed up Jom:"
Will you kindly fuck off with your arrogant ranting - it impresses nobody
You have always dismissed anything from the press that does not suit your extremist agenda - submarines, Bin Laden..... all "made up Carroll shit"
You wre given links to article afte atricle about Bin Laden and it was all wrong as far as yoiu are concerned and here you are defending one of Britain's most popular bumwipes
If you feel free to call someone a "loutish posturing liar" don't be surprised when they feel free to express their opinion of you
You are a crude, brutish, ill-bred, ill mannered ignoramus who substitutes vitriolic abuse for argument in the hope of covering up your lack of knowledge
Give it a rest and stop polluting this forum
Jim Carroll

Post 4

Jim Carroll - 27 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

"When I said I believed that view, it was the only one around."
It wasn't around until you made it up Keith
All the people you claim to have quoted actuallty said that there was know known reason for the behaviour of a tiny handful of criminals (you have never had the honesty to acknowledge how few there are) yet you chose to condemn an entire cultre of one and a half million people with your racist smear.
I don't lie - I put up exactly what you said and will continue to do so as long as you continue to call me a liar
They wre yoiu exact words and you have continued to defend them - it is still your view - and you still refuse to provide quotes for your dishonest claims.
Gerald Kaufman
A "self hating Jew" presumably
Loise Ellman
Vice Chairman of The Friends of Israel
Mark Gardner
A Pro-Israeli activist opposed to any criticism of Israel's behaviour of the Palestinian People
Ruth Smeeth
Pro Israel supporter who attended one of Netenayahu's meetings at which she openly supported his most racist and most criticised attacks on the Muslim people
All good, upright, honest and trustworthy people
Jim Carroll

Post 5

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM

"Oh yes you're the prat who believes in there being a "pecking order" "
I didn't till I came across yuo and Iainas
" I have actually proved it"
You have never proved anything because you refuse to substantiate anything - they are all your opinions - nothing more
"So you obviously could not find any post of mine ....."
If you care to read what I actually wrote (not one of your habits) I pointed out that I mistook your posting for one of Ake's - I went on to point out that there was little to distinguish between the two of you.
Perhaps I should apologise - to Ake
He, at least is just slippily and evasively dishonest - you are bullying, blustering and thuggish
For all Ake's faults, that cannot be applied to him
My comments about Iains was a response to his continuing insulting and patronising behaviour to those who have the temerity not to agree with him - if started in his early postings, has continued and looks as if it will do so until somebody stops him - mine was an effort to do so.
One lout on these threads is sufficient
"Missed a bit in my reply to you Keith
Why wouldn't I believe all those credible and mostly Pakistani people?"
We don't believe them because they didn't saY it
Why don't you believe all those prominent people, MPs, community leaders, Musilim activists in the community..... who said Jack Staw's statement was a load of shit?
There mere many hundreds more of them than the few you invented?
Are yuo a racist or what (rheororical question - of course)
Now - those quote - who described All male British Pakistanis as culturally implanted potential perverts
A quote or a link will do
Jim Carroll

Right then numbnuts you show me anywhere in between Post 1 and post 4 above where you -

If you care to read what I actually wrote (not one of your habits) I POINTED OUT THAT I MISTOOK YOUR POSTING FOR ONE OF AKE's - I went on to point out that there was little to distinguish between the two of you.

FACT is you didn't - Jim Carroll caught out in yet another blatant barefaced lie - don't need any links as I have just faithfully copied and pasted exactly what you posted - you should be f**kin' ashamed of yourself Carroll.

Be interesting to see if Steve Shaw who doesn't tolerate lies standing on this forum comes in to pull up Carroll for his conduct - my guess is he won't, after all he has never done so in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:20 AM

"Both Steve and Dave acknowledged the truth of it"

Did I now? I don't remember. Chapter and verse, please.

Jim, you could also have mentioned John Mann's deliberate staging of his confected public spat with Ken Livingstone and Ruth Smeeth's histrionics and fake tears at the launch of the Chakrabarti report. These are precisely the kinds of dishonest opportunists who would immediately leap on Gerald Kaufman's every word. He wasn't always "careful" about what he said (why should he have been?) but he was brutally and fearlessly truthful about the mistreatment of Palestinians by the Israeli regime. What a pity for the "there's-an-antisemite-under-every-bed" brigade that he was a Jew! He certainly had the Board of Deputies spluttering when they pronounced him "a self-hating Jew," which he was anything but. Still, it was nice to waste bobad's time by getting him to produce his litany of arrant nonsense. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:23 AM

Jaysus, I'll say this for you, Teribus. I admire your boundless energy if nothing else (AND nothing else, actually). Alternatively, get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM

"Try not to talk to people and remember you are a mental midget Iaians
People with far more knowledge and experience have had their fingers burned on this forum by forgetting their place.
You really are an obnoxiously smug bastard, aren't you - what a pity your contributions don't live up to your posturing - especially regarding your (supporst?) for a mass murder and torturer."

Better that than being a raving, rabid ranter such as yourself Jimmy.
Your only response to people that disagree with you is acres of cut and paste, splashing a paintbox everywhere, frothing incoherence and hurling insults. Not exactly admirable traits now are they?
IF all labour resembles you their lack lustre ranking in the recent polls is hardly a surprise now is it?
Congratulations on smug bastard. It is good to ring the changes!
What delights do you have in the way of insults for later in the week?
Oh and by the way, I only put the link up so you and stevie could react as predicted. Gives a little light relief for the rest of us.
   I suggest you both go back to discussing weeds- if it gets too much for you I can always supply some roundup to cure the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:46 AM

"No cultural link and not exclusively Muslim" - Jim Carroll

At no time at all has anyone said this has anything to do with religion. If you have any proof of me having done so please produce it.

From your long cut'n'paste we get the following from Mohammed Shafiq:

"Child sex abuse happens in all communities," says Mohammed Shafiq. "The white abusers tend to be loners or do it online, or are friends of the victim's family. It's only in on-street grooming that there is an over-representation of Pakistani men."

Also this from Mr Karmani:

"We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men," says Mr Karmani

Also this:

That view is echoed by Alyas Karmani, a Muslim imam and psychologist, who works in the Pakistani community in major UK cities to combat attitudes that tolerate or encourage sexual violence against women.

Now are you saying that these three men do not know what they are talking about?? We know their "qualifications" and involvement with what is clearly seen as a problem requiring urgent and immediate action - What are yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:11 AM

Do give over, Iains. You're just here for a scrap, that much is clear. You appear to know diddly about the issues being "discussed." Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:17 AM

"At no time at all has anyone said this has anything to do with religion."
Sigh.......
Keith pointed the accusation at "Pakistanini Musilime" - not Siks, or Christians, or Bush Baptists.......
He and others have cosistenly gone into long diatribes about the teaching of Islam leading to the debasing of women - which he has claimed is s source of those abuses
Bobad at one time but the largest cut-'n-paste ever seen on this forum (lifted directly from an Islamophobic racist site and dating back to the pre-Christian era), attempting to prove Islam to be a degenerate religion.
They were not talking about where they bought their shoes - this was an attack on their religion.
Karmaini goes on to provide a list of reasons why these crimes take place other than the culture or religion of the perpetrators - opportunity, occupations - Straw added the actions of "testosterone-fizzing young men"
"Are you saying these people, and thousands more, including judges and policemen who try cases and social workers who have to deal with them, don't know what they are talking about?
What's your qualifications?
We are not disputing there isn't a problem that has to be dealt with - any serious crime falls under that category.
The problem is when racists use those crimes to smear entire cultures and races.
The article I put up points out that over 95% of theese crimes are white indigenous, many of them family based
Is that due to a cultural implant?
"Better that than being a raving, rabid ranter such as yourself Jimmy."
Not even original abuse Iains - you lack imagination as well as good manners.
Your arrogance went on full drive on your earliest postings - it didn't measure up to your ignorance then and it still doesn't
We can all be snappish in our arguments - you are nothing but.
You start off talking down to people and end the same, with nothing in between
You display no knowledge of the subjects you involve yourself in, and no interest in what others have to say.
Whenever points are put to you, you ignore them and continue with you spitefully childish abuse.
That is not debate - i's abusive arrogance
The cut and paste you refer to is information to be discussed - you don't go there

"Better that than being a raving, rabid ranter such as yourself Jimmy."
" splashing a paintbox everywhere, frothing incoherence"
"Congratulations on smug bastard"
"What delights do you have in the way of insults for later in the week?"
" I only put the link up so you and stevie could react as predicted. Gives a little light relief for the rest of us."
"I suggest you both go back to discussing weeds- if it gets too much for you I can always supply some roundup to cure the problem."
Not bad for one posting - it usually takes Teribus half a dozen to plummet those depths
I put his down to insecurity of opinion - you seem to just exist up your own arse and you're not even good at it, having stolen most of it from elsewhere, like your claimed knowledge of socialism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM

merely responding in kind jimmy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

Jim,
Now - those quote - who described All male British Pakistanis as culturally implanted potential perverts

I actually do not think they were all paedophiles or perverts.
It had more to do with those vulnerable children being "easy meat."

I quoted lots of people saying it was a cultural issue, and we are all implanted to some extent by our culture.

Jim, your Independent article is quite clear that there is an over-representation, and says it is cultural.


"At no time at all has anyone said this has anything to do with religion."
Sigh.......
Keith pointed the accusation at "Pakistanini Musilime" - not Siks, or Christians, or Bush Baptists.......

You knowingly lie.
You know I repeatedly stated that Islam was not an issue in the offending. That it had nothing to do with Islam.
That part of my post was in quotes.
Remember why?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM

Steve,
"Both Steve and Dave acknowledged the truth of it"

Did I now? I don't remember. Chapter and verse, please.

In answer to this from me,

A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

I had to keep saying it because you and others either deny it or say it is not significant.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?

You posted,

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:20 PM

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM

"I actually do not think they were all paedophiles or perverts."
Then why did you describe them so and why do you insist that they are by pretending to claim other have sai so?#
"I quoted lots of people saying it was a cultural issue,"
No - you quoted a tiny handful who said there might be cultural implications but they didn't know what the reason was for the criminality
You turned that into a "cultural" implant and went on to invent a "massive imbalance"
"your Independent article is quite clear that there is an over-representation, and says it is cultural."
It says there is some (not massive) in Oxford and it says that if it is cultural it is not "Muslim" but from the surrounding circumstances - it goes on to outline those circumstances - nothing to do with being "Muslim"
And still you continue to claim it is
You specified Muslim Pakistanis - every last one of them - those who weren't rapists have to suppress their culture
That was the enormity of your racism
You really have nowhere to go frem here Keith
You asked for an example of your extremism - you have it, and thanks to your denials and protestations, you've allowed us to elaborate on it and the longer you continue, the more opportunity you give us.
"merely responding in kind jimmy."
You are now openly lying Iains
You started this to attempt to display your imagined superiority; you have acheived just the opposite
My chosen name is Jim - have the courtesy to use it.
Jim is reserved for people I know and like
You do all this from the safety of your keyboard - you don't even have the bottle to identify yourself - that is cyber-stalking - yet another of yor qualities!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:01 AM

Dave,
Incidentally, I think it is significant that the figures you quote only start in, what was it, 1998? British Pakistanis have been around a lot longer than that. Why would the over-representation only start to happen less than 20 years ago?

I do not know Dave, but the crime is a comparatively new one.
I doubt there are any reported cases before that.


If do. why then did you state that the other reasons were only excuses and did not explain the 'real' over-representation?

We were both quite clear that there was a real over-representation.
I do not accept theories that seek to explain that away.


1. British Pakistanis being culturally implanted to commit these crimes

I said I believed that.

2. That demographic is also over-represented in the taxi trade which has the ability to commit these crimes easily

Possibly, but there has yet to be an instance of this crime in towns where other demographics drive the taxis.

3. The police are concentrating more on that demographic

The evidence is that the police tended to ignore this crime possibly to avoid accusations of racism.

4. That demographic is not as good at hiding it's crimes as others

That would be a racist view.

5. Other reasons as yet undiscovered.

Yes, my mind is open to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:02 AM

It seems strange to me that some posters are more than happy to have accusations aimed specifically at Pakistani Muslim men but are not prepared to even engage when their own religion and it's culture is shown to exhibit tendencies to abuse young children.

In the latest reports it would seem that the abuse was perpetrated EXCLUSIVELY by white christians much of it in religious schools.

If we look back over recent years many, many cases of reported child abuse have involved white christians.

Is it part of their culture?

Some posters on this site claim to be christians perhaps they could tell us if it is part of their culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:21 AM

All good, upright, honest and trustworthy people

Indeed they are unlike you who refuses to acknowledge the contemptible anti-Semitism within the Labour party instead blaming it on a plot perpetuated by Jews in order to undermine the party and it's leader - another canard typical of the kind anti-Semites are fond of perpetuating. In addition your implication that because those people are Jewish and supporters of Israel they are not good, upright, honest and trustworthy people is abhorrent but not unexpected from someone with your track record on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:26 AM

Jim,
"I actually do not think they were all paedophiles or perverts."
Then why did you describe them so and why do you insist that they are by pretending to claim other have sai so

I did not. If you are not lying produce a quote.

No - you quoted a tiny handful who said there might be cultural implications but they didn't know what the reason was for the criminality

They all blamed various aspects of culture as the reason.

It says there is some (not massive) in Oxford and it says that if it is cultural it is not "Muslim" but from the surrounding circumstances - it goes on to outline those circumstances - nothing to do with being "Muslim"

I said many times in the old thread that it was "nothing to do with being Muslim."

The Indy says it was to do with culture, and acknowledged the over-representation.

You specified Muslim Pakistanis - every last one of them - those who weren't rapists have to suppress their culture

The cause was said to be cultural, and we are all implanted to some extent by our culture.

I only said I believed it, and only because of all those credible people, and stating that only a tiny minority were effected.
Read the thread and stop lying about it.

Rag,

It seems strange to me that some posters are more than happy to have accusations aimed specifically at Pakistani Muslim men but are not prepared to even engage when their own religion and it's culture is shown to exhibit tendencies to abuse young children.

I believe that all demographics "exhibit tendencies to abuse young children."
It hardly needs saying that includes whites and Christians.
What moron would be unaware of cases involving those groups!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:32 AM

Again from reports in the media over the past few years many perpetrators of abuse against children were teachers, it is perhaps part of their culture that lends itself to child abuse.

Perhaps a teacher or former teacher could enlighten us.

I suppose if that teacher were also a christian there would be a even greater chance of them being a perpetrator.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

So, basically Keith, you are saying that there is an over-represenation of British Pakistanis in the crimes detailed but even though you do not really know why this is the case, you are happy to propound the theory that it is because of their culture. Is that right?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM

"I did not. If you are not lying produce a quote."
You have had your exact quote over and over again Keith
The discussion was about the abuse of underage girls
You made your "implant" statement
End of story.
"They all blamed various aspects of culture as the reason."
None of them did
They all said specifically taht the causes where not known
You blamed the culture
If you claim differently - produce the quote
Other than out and out racists, nobody has ever suggsted a cultural implant is in any way the cause of the acts of this handful of criminals
By suggesting it, you put the entire community under suspicion
Now - provide your evidence or stop calling me a liar.
"It hardly needs saying that includes whites and Christians."
Why did you specify "all male Pakistani Muslims?
Specify and describe yur Quantify your antisemitism Bobad or you have no case
Doesn't get more simple than that
Those who associate the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish people are the only antisemites here - you are the front runner
Your persistent refusal to condemn the accusation that the Jewish members of Parliament have kept silent is confirmation that your concern is for the Israeli regime and not the Jewish people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

Specify and describe yur Quantify your antisemitism Bobad or you have no case

The Labour party has made the case - you prove that it is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

"You have had your exact quote over and over again Keith
The discussion was about the abuse of underage girls
You made your "implant" statement
End of story." - Jim Carroll

End of story Jom, it wasn't even the beginning. The "implant" story as you term it was deliberately misrepresented by you as a statement made by Keith A of Hertford - it wasn't - It was a statement made by someone else who Keith A of Hertford quoted and asked for comments on.

Same goes for the "Male Pakistani Muslims" quote you keep waving about like a flag. That phrase was used by someone else and it was quoted by Keith A.

Now back to business:

Where was it that you - "POINTED OUT THAT I MISTOOK YOUR POSTING FOR ONE OF AKE's - I went on to point out that there was little to distinguish between the two of you." - You see I've looked and looked and cannot find it anywhere you lying toerag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:53 AM

Hmmm how did the professor phrase it?

"Don I now believe" wasn't it.

The dictionary definition of Believe is: 1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

Paint it any colour you like the meaning is still the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 10:32 AM

Who's this professor you keep wittering on about Raggy?

Muslim commentators gave opinions and they detailed the predominance of male Pakistani Muslims, I know that Mohammed Shafiq is not a professor and that Alyas Karmani is a researcher and lecturer at Bradford and Leeds Universities so is he the professor you are referring to? he was one of the people who suggested the possible reason for the disproportionate number of British-Pakistani males involved was "cultural". Keith A stated that in the light of the evidence and the fact that no other explanation was offered he accepted the only reason on offer at the time. He has now stated quite clearly that he is perfectly prepared to examine any other reason offered - so far there have been none.

DtG asked a question earlier:

"I think it is significant that the figures you quote only start in, what was it, 1998? British Pakistanis have been around a lot longer than that. Why would the over-representation only start to happen less than 20 years ago?"

Change in population figures possibly. In 2001 there were ~770,000 Pakistanis living in the UK of whom ~56% were born in the UK, ~36% came from Pakistan and the rest from East Africa and Bangladesh. By 2011 that number had grown to ~1,170,000 of that number ~502,000 have come from Pakistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM

You have a problem with names don't you terrikins, Jom, Carroll, Christmas, Shaw, Gnome, Raggy to mention but a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 11:01 AM

We are speaking about people born in Britain of Pakistani origin though, Teribus. An influx from Pakistan would not have made a significant difference on the numbers until many years later when those immigrants had children of their own. Which leads me onto a point that had been milling about my head for a while. If this over-representation is by people born in Britain of Pakistani origin, then what culture are we referring to? Those who were of an age to indulge in these crimes beginning in 1998 had been brought up in Britain, schooled in British schools, watched British TV and listened to British music. Which culture is it that has embedded them with a wish to make money out of underage girls?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 11:20 AM

"You see I've looked and looked and cannot find it anywhere you lying toerag."
My apologies - I posted a correction immediately I realised Ake had made the posting - it apparently didn't go off - sometimes happens (happened to you son so long ago)
I'm sure you'll make as much capital from this as possible - that's what you do.
The point remains - you are two of a kind.
"Same goes for the "Male Pakistani Muslims" quote you keep waving about like a flag. That phrase was used by someone else and it was quoted by Keith A."
Now that IS a lie
Keith has never quoted a single individual making such a statement and he refuses to do so now
Not so long ago you were asked to provide the so called quote - you have not done so, nor will you now.
Any public figure accusing an entire racial community of being culturally implanted to have under-age sex would not only have been condemned publicly fro such an obscene statement, but they would have lost any position they held and would have been liable to prosecution under the incitement to race hatred lws
That is the stuff of scummy racist internet sites, not public statements by "prominent figures"
YOU ARE, OF COURSE, FREE TO PROV ME WRONG BY QUOTING AND LINKING ME TO THOSE STATEMENTS BY "PROMINENT PEOPLE" - KEITH REFUSES TO DO SO but please hurry up; none of us are getting any younger.
"The Labour party has made the case - you prove that it is wrong."
No it hasn't Bobad
The Labour party investigated the claims and found them to be not true
You peoe accused Labour of covering them up - Keith accused the Jewish members of Parliament of refusing to specify the claims because of their love for the party
The Israelis were given a leaked version of Labour's report and they have never specified what that antisemitism is apart from criticism of Israel
Feel free to describe the "seriouse problem of antisemitism" in detail
Labour took the accusations seriously and investigated
The Tories were accused of Islamophobia a year ago and have done nothing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM

A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

I had to keep saying it because you and others either deny it or say it is not significant.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?

You posted,

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant?

I speak the English that her maj speaks, Keith. You asked me if I STILL deny it. As I hadn't denied it before, how can I "still" deny it, Keith? Thus my totally non-committal answer, which asked YOU a question you couldn't answer. I don't trust anything you say, with good reason (you told us that Taylor's book was described as "fraudulent" and refused to recant, remember?), so I neither confirmed nor denied anything, did I, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 12:28 PM

The Labour party investigated the claims and found them to be not true

Lol......that's why they suspended 50 plus members. You're making yourself look sillier and sillier by keeping up with your denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

Boring, bobad. Nobody cares.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

".that's why they suspended 50 plus members.
While the enquiry was going on
What is boring and silly is making accusations and refusing to specify what they are
Utterly stupid and unheard of - make your charges or go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM

Or, to keep it simple, just go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

Raggytash - 27 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM

"You have a problem with names don't you terrikins, Jom, Carroll, Christmas, Shaw, Gnome, Raggy to mention but a few."

So apparently have you - are any of those mentioned above this "professor" you keep asking questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:36 PM

Dave,
So, basically Keith, you are saying that there is an over-represenation of British Pakistanis in the crimes detailed

We both did Dave. Remember?

but even though you do not really know why this is the case, you are happy to propound the theory that it is because of their culture. Is that right?

No. I do not and never have "propounded" it.
As I frequently said at the time, I neither knew nor cared why they did it, I just wanted them to stop.

I only made that post in response to a direct question which you should read to get the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:44 PM

Kettle, black, pot Terrikins.

I seem to recall you have a problem with DUAL standards.


Did I spell it wright this time.







PS The error was deliberate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

No quotes Carroll???

I've given you two from people Keith A has previously mentioned:

1: Mohammed Shafiq (chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation):

"Child sex abuse happens in all communities, the white abusers tend to be loners or do it online, or are friends of the victim's family. It's only in on-street grooming that there is an over-representation of Pakistani men."

Just to make this abundantly clear to ALL - a man called Mohammed Shafiq made that statement - Keith A of Hertford DID NOT.

2: Alyas Karmani, a Muslim imam and psychologist, who works in the Pakistani community in major UK cities to combat attitudes that tolerate or encourage sexual violence against women:

"We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men"

Just to make this abundantly clear to ALL - a man called Alyas Karmani made that statement - Keith A of Hertford DID NOT.

The discussion centres on "on-street grooming" it is not, nor was not centred on child abuse in general, although certain contributors on this thread are attempting to divert the focus to that area.

British-Pakistani definition:

A person of Pakistani ancestry or origin, who was born in or was an immigrant to the United Kingdom, former heartland of the British Empire.

The figures given for 2001 and 2011 are from the official census and the demographic is based on the personal and voluntary categorisation by those taking part. As you can see not being born in the UK does not preclude someone from being described as British-Pakistani.

You asked for a reason why this has happened over the last 20 years - 43% of the Pakistani Community in the UK where born in Pakistan and were brought up in Pakistan therefore their major "cultural" influence is from a childhood being brought up in Pakistan and not of someone who was brought up in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:59 PM

And the hits just keep on coming:

A former Labour parliamentary candidate has been suspended and is under investigation after anti-Semitic postings on Twitter.

Former Black Notley Parish Council leader John Clarke was criticised after endorsing a post online which said "The Rothschild Family" has used money lending and Israel to "take over the world."

Claiming the post by 'Tinnelle' (@Tinnelle88) was "an oversimplified view of the world economy but containing a great deal of truth", he was condemned as promoting anti-Semitic material by other users on the social media site.

A Labour Party official has since confirmed that the former Essex politician has been suspended from the party and is under investigation. Clarke also resigned as leader of the Parish Council.

Jeremy Newmark, Chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement said: "We welcome the speed with which the Party have moved to investigate this matter and trust that it will reach an appropriate conclusion as swiftly as possible."

Joe Glasman, Head of Political Investigations at Campaign Against Antisemitism said: "John Clarke's views are utterly abhorrent, but unfortunately they appear to be quite common within the increasingly racist Labour Party, which has been secretly readmitting members who were suspended over anti-Semitism. The Labour Party has not uttered a single word since we exposed Mr Clarke. We have repeatedly stated that we do not consider the Labour Party to be safe for Jews. Sadly for many in Labour, including Mr Clarke, accusations of anti-Semitism are like water off a duck's back, or worse, a badge of honour."

Ex-Labour councillor suspended for 'anti-Semitic' Twitter tirade

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Jim,
You have had your exact quote over and over again Keith

When I said ""I actually do not think they were all paedophiles or perverts." you replied,
"Then why did you describe them so"

I never have described them so. You lie.

"They all blamed various aspects of culture as the reason."
None of them did

Yes they did. You lie.

Straw said that in their culture "they want some outlet for that (testosterone) but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits" and vulnerable young girls are "easy meat."

Ann Cryer agreed. https://wn.com/ex_keighley_mp_ann_cryer_defends_jack_straw's_comments_on_uk_muslim_child-rape_gangs

Lord Ahmed linked to cousin and arranged marriage in that culture,
'This didn't happen in my or my father's generation. This is happening among young Asians. While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad.'

Alibhai_Brown said, "So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended ­family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised'"

Also, "The perpetrators are not paedophiles in the normal sense of the word. Racial and cultural odium as much as ugly lust and power drives them to abuse. Most of them are also irreversibly misogynist. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal-apologists-misogyny-and-double-standards-9692497.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM

Jim again,
Why did you specify "all male Pakistani Muslims?

I did not specify that. That is how they were specified in the question I was responding to. That is why it is in quotes.
Why will you not read the context of the post?
Because you are dishonestly trying to misrepresent it.

You have been making these same old accusations for six years!
All I can do is keep rebutting them in the same old way until someone stops you.

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

Steve,
Thus my totally non-committal answer,

It was not non-committal.

You went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else. I wouldn't want to, but neither would I gleefully put them forward to "prove" (or, possibly worse, insinuate) something that requires a whole load more context. My post that you are so fond of quoting clearly states my position.

But tell us what you think now Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM

I did agree Keith - The figures indicate that there is an over-representation. The big difference is that I questioned why there was from day 1 while you happily blamed it on British Pakistani culture. You did propound that theory for some considerable time until you realised that I may be right. As you now accept that there are other reasons I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Others may not be so kind.

What culture did you have in mind BTW as per my earlier post? These people are British and were brought up British. Do you think it is a racial trait or some such? Do you think that their parents tell them it is OK to traffic young girls? Or is it British culture that has taught them that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:19 PM

So you've lied again, haven't you, Keith? Completely in character. You accused me of denying something by asking whether I "still denied it." As I didn't deny it in the first place, but remained totallty non-committal under your pseudo-pressure (as your bold quote testifies perfectly clearly), you are lying, and you seem to want to divert away from that by asking me "what I think now." Well I'll tell you what I think now. You're a bloody liar, that's what I think now, and a period of silence from you would be extremely welcome. 😡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:07 PM

Well, well, the loutish posturing liar from Cornwall has found another pin to dance on, we will probably still be hearing about this latest non-event in 2020.

Not the least bit interested in what you think about anything Shaw.

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

Of course you are, Bill! You're obsessed! I LOVE all the attention you bestow on me! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:14 AM

"You are now openly lying Iains"

I can stand all your insults jimmy but being called a liar because your little brain has run out of other insults to hurl is below contempt.
Either put up or shut up you silly little man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

"I've given you two from people Keith A has previously mentioned:"
No of which has come anywhere near describing an entire culture as being "implanted" with a tendency to rape young women, as Keith claimed.
That was Keith's claim
"Mohammed Shafiq"
Not one of Keith's "witnesses" talks about a technique used ny a certain group of criminals in a certain set of circumstances.
He does not attempt link that criminality with the culture, he says that it is Musilms who use that particular tactic to obtain women - no cultural implication whatever, just opportunism.
If you read the article on the Oxford abuse, that is covered fully
"Alyas Karmani"
Also a new kid on the block, not one of Keith's witnesses.
Again no suggestion of a cultural link with the abuse, just that those involved are Muslims - again, fully explained by the Oxford report.
We are talking about around three hundred criminals from a population of one and a half million, they are the ones involved in rape and abduction - given those facts, how can there be a cultural link?
All the Muslim commentators on these incidents have said that the reasons that the Muslims have become involved needs examination
THe Muslim culture is opposed to sex outside marriage - these men, far from being example of the Muslim culture, have rejected it and are misfits - Keith presents them as representatives.
The vast majority of peadophieles in Britain are indigenous - ninety of percent of them.
It has been shown that a significant number of them are church officials - Britain is now beginning to examine a cover-up of paedophile victims who wre sent abroad, having been abused in institutions run by the Church - as Jim Loach's film, 'Oranges and Sunshine' showed, when they arrived there they were physically and sexually abused by the Christian Church there - and used as slave labour
Does that imply that Christianity "implants people with a tendency to rape children"?
I haven't even touched on the 'Clerical Abuse' revelations that has all but brought the Christian church to its knees in 'Holy Ireland'
Both you and Keith have taken a small number of criminal acts and have attempted to smear an entire population who are largely law-abiding, passive and industrious.
You have totally ignored the implications of similar acts committed by the indigenous population, and the far-far greater number carried out, not just by Christians, but by officers of the Christian Church who have used the authority their position has given them to abuse children , not just over the last decade, but for centuries.
I don't know - maybe all religions "implant" evil acts into their adherents - I don't have a religion.
I like to think it is individuals and circumstances that give rise to criminality.
If you want to discuss this, it would be helpful is you dropped your arrogant posturing and suspended your belief that you know more than everybody else for five minutes
My chosen name is Jim Carroll - not "Carroll" or "Jom" or "Christmas" or any other unimaginative put down you might like to hide behind in order to bully and bluster your way through arguments
Why not give it a go?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM

Steve - If you want to back to more sensible stuff, I have found a source of underpants without buttons :-) I have ordered some and will let you have the details if they are any good.

Lovely spring-like day here in Airedale. I have some sort of man flu but when that is sorted I will go looking at flowers. Snowing in Manchester!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

Dave,
The big difference is that I questioned why there was from day 1 while you happily blamed it on British Pakistani culture.

No. As you well know I did not.
I admitted to knowing nothing about that culture.
Very credible people from within or close to that culture blamed it, and I said I saw no reason to dismiss their informed opinion.
It was also the only available explanation for a real over-representation at that time, and you did not challenge it at that time.

You did propound that theory for some considerable time until you realised that I may be right.

No. I had no interest in propounding that theory but was forced to defend myself from accusations of racism by defending it, and also pointing out that it was not mine.

Why do we need to rehash this nasty old debate now Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM

Steve,
So you've lied again, haven't you, Keith? Completely in character. You accused me of denying something by asking whether I "still denied it

Untrue Steve.
I did believe that you denied the over-representation because you always posted in support of Jim who certainly did.

When I asked if you still denied it you said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM

Dunno Keith - I suppose you should ask whoever rehashed it.

But if you knew nothing about it, how can you insist it was the only explanation at the time? I did not know anything about it either so I looked into it and found that the reasons I had put forward had been discussed elsewhere.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:20 AM

More misrepresentation and dissembling from one of the forum's best known and most widely exposed lying toerags.

Why do you keep pushing the lie that people have said that the crime of on-street grooming of vulnerable young females has got something to do with religion?

Let's expose another of your deliberately told lies Jim:

Here is what Jim states about the two commentators:

""Mohammed Shafiq"
Not one of Keith's "witnesses" talks about a technique used ny a certain group of criminals in a certain set of circumstances.
He does not attempt link that criminality with the culture, he says that it is Musilms who use that particular tactic to obtain women - no cultural implication whatever, just opportunism." - Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Mohammed Shafiq:

"Child sex abuse happens in all communities," says Mohammed Shafiq. "The white abusers tend to be loners or do it online, or are friends of the victim's family. It's only in on-street grooming that there is an over-representation of Pakistani men."

Sorry Jim but I see a definite reference to a "cultural" group but strangely Jim absolutely no reference to Muslims.

Alyas Karmani:

"We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men," says Mr Karmani

To further elaborate on Alyas Karmani, he is a Muslim imam and psychologist, who works in the Pakistani community in major UK cities to combat attitudes that tolerate or encourage sexual violence against women.

Guess what Jim once again specific references to a particular community with no mention of their religion.

By the way Jim, of course the Oxford report mentions their religion something like 88% of all Pakistani's living in the UK are Muslim. The sole reason Pakistan came into being as a nation (East and West) was that the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent did not put their trust in living in a united India where Hindu's would predominate - the Muslims of the sub-continent specifically wanted a Muslim State, does not detract from the fact that within the Muslim State of Pakistan there are a number of very specific Tribal "Cultural" groups. But both "witnesses" as you refer to them are deliberately specific in mentioning the "cultural" group NOT the "religious" one - they most certainly are NOT the same.

Religion does not demand that marriage is only permissible or desirable within family and tribal groups - that is a "cultural" requirement necessary to strengthen the "family". Religious demands of chastity have existed in many religions down through the ages, none of them have ever stopped young men from seeking to circumvent those strictures to indulge in pre-marital sex. "Culturally" these young men find it easier to engage in these activities with young vulnerable white females as in the UK there are more of them, "culturally" they are viewed as being "fair game" as they will not violate their own "cultural" rules of what is considered dishonourable behaviour - Note "cultural" rules not "religious".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:22 AM

Jim,
"Mohammed Shafiq"
Not one of Keith's "witnesses"

Yes he was!!

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:03 AM

Atma Singh, from the Sikh Community Action Network, said: "Well done to Jack Straw for being 100 per cent honest and saying what many people already know – that there are pockets of youngsters in the Pakistani Muslim community who treat girls from other communities as sexual objects."

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.

"The reality is that there is an issue," he said. "There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

"More misrepresentation and dissembling from one of the forum's best known and most widely exposed lying toerags."
I'll take that as a noo then
Piss off you pair of racist pricks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:35 AM

Jim again,
Not one of Keith's "witnesses" talks about a technique used ny a certain group of criminals in a certain set of circumstances.

Who said they did?
What they all did was link the offending to aspects of the culture, as does that Independent piece you refer to.
It's heading, "The shocking new report exposes the dangerous attitudes that exist in some of the UK's Asian communities"
That is culture Jim.

these men, far from being example of the Muslim culture, have rejected it and are misfits - Keith presents them as representatives.
Keith does not and never has. "A tiny minority" is what I always called them.
Any Christian or Muslim who commits sex crimes is acting outside the tenets of those faiths, but it is still all to common for both.

Both you and Keith have taken a small number of criminal acts and have attempted to smear an entire population who are largely law-abiding, passive and industrious.

No. We are discussing every single reported case of on-street grooming. That population is massively over-represented in that crime.

I freely acknowledge as I always have that they are not just "largely" but overwhelmingly "law-abiding, passive and industrious."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

Dave,
Dunno Keith - I suppose you should ask whoever rehashed it.

That was Jim, but why have you, Steve and Rag so enthusiastically joined in?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

This is addressed to whoever cares to serpond in a responsible adult manner
I have no interest in the opinions of arrogant racist strutters who are incapable of discussing the subject seriously
THere is not a shred of evidence of a link between these few crimes and Muslim culture - nobody has ever suggested there is other than to point out that the three hundred or so involved are Muslims - they might well have pointed out that they were left-handed or red haired ort supported Chelsea.
THe pimping and torture that took place in some of these crimes reduces the number to around a dozen - most were of young men with "fizzing testosterone" to quote Jack Straw, seducing young women.
Police and magistrates at the time said their was no link with the Muslim culture and the only in-depth survey carried out came to the same conclusion
No information has been uncovered since to suggest that these crimes were "Muslim" other than they have been committed by a handful of young men who have rejected the basic laws of their culture and have stepped away from their communities.
All these crimes have been condemned unreservedly by the British Muslim communities.
The vast number of crimes of this sort have been documented as having been committed by non-Muslims, mainly indigenous Britons, many of them by Christians and a significant number of these by Christian clergymen using their cloth to facilitate the crimes.
Unless they come up with serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of a "cultural implant", anybody who claims that these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form are raving racists who are contravening British law by making such a suggestion.
If anybody wishes to discuss the subject in the adult, responsible and respectful manner, I'm more than happy to join the
If not, I suggest those who old the obnoxious views they have put forward, go and put them on some of the racist, extremeist sites that have been set up to generate such views - I have no doubt that will receive an extremely warm welcome.
As far as my argument wit Keith goes - I put up an example of his extremism, at his request.
He said what he said - that remains on record as the most extreme statement ever made on this forum - the smearing of an entire national culture.
His continuing arguments are proof positive that his views remain unchanged
Game over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:29 AM

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

You've just got to marvel at this lying toerags conversational style:

"Piss off you pair of racist pricks" - Jim Carroll

Others might have taken a more conventional approach and made some sort of attempt to refute what had been said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

"You believed," did you, Keith? Do you decided to hector me on the basis of "your belief," huh? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM

why have you, Steve and Rag so enthusiastically joined in?

I can't speak for the others but there is no enthusiasm from me for the same old stupidity.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM

Jim,
THere is not a shred of evidence of a link between these few crimes and Muslim culture

But there is according to all those people quoted.
They are far better placed than you to know the facts.
You have produced no shred of evidence against.

THe pimping and torture that took place in some of these crimes reduces the number to around a dozen

How is that Jim?

- most were of young men with "fizzing testosterone" to quote Jack Straw,

Most young men have fizzing testosterone, so why were the offenders overwhelmingly from a single demographic?
Straw and many others state cultural reasons.

Police and magistrates at the time said their was no link with the Muslim culture and the only in-depth survey carried out came to the same conclusion

Yes and no-one here has blamed "Muslim culture."

All these crimes have been condemned unreservedly by the British Muslim communities.

We agree on that Jim.

The vast number of crimes of this sort have been documented as having been committed by non-Muslims, mainly indigenous Britons, many of them by Christians and a significant number of these by Christian clergymen using their cloth to facilitate the crimes.

If by "crimes of this kind" you mean all sexual offences then yes.
I have only ever discussed on-street grooming where there is a massive over-representation of one demographic.

Unless they come up with serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of a "cultural implant

We are all implanted to some extent by our culture, and you HAVE been given serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of culture.

- I put up an example of his extremism, at his request.

No, you never have and never will because I am not remotely extreme in my views.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

Dave,
I can't speak for the others but there is no enthusiasm from me for the same old stupidity.

So why are you here doing it?

Steve,
"You believed," did you, Keith? Do you decided to hector me on the basis of "your belief," huh?

You gave every reason to believe you denied the over-representation in your total support for Jim.

When I asked if you still denied it you said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:50 AM

I am not denying doing it. I am denying enthusiasm. You made that bit up.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM

On the underpants front, Dave (a far saner topic of conversation, if I may say so), I've long been an Asda George five pack of boxers for eight quid chap (XL, before you ask). They lack the longevity of the equivalent M&S article but they are much cheaper. They do have that pesky button. I used to cut it off but I find that I can leave it permanently undone without a problem. I'll see I can find out what Jeremy wears. I like the concept of the socialist underpant.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:55 AM

Find out what "context-innocent" means, Keith. Just back off. You're up shit creek without a paddle (again - very Wheatcroftesque of you) on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM

' I like the concept of the socialist underpant.'

hmmmm!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

Life has enough complications without putting buttons on underpants.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

"Others might have taken a more conventional approach and made some sort of attempt to refute what had been said."
I have done -- at great length
The fact that you choose to ignore those facts doesn't alter that one iota
At present, you are displaying all the belligerent thuggery and potential menage I associate with the racism you are displaying.
You want to discuss rationally ,behave like an adult
At present all you the pair of you offer is a synchronised display of "good thug-bad thug" thuggery
Not conducive to rational discussion
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:12 AM

Knickers to the pair of 'em, Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:20 AM

I envisage the socialist underpant to be red in colour, wide-fitting (after all, Labour is a broad church) and designed for those who "dress to the left." Naturally, the fabric will have to come from a workers' cooperative somewhere. Hurry up if you have any other desirable attributes to suggest as I have to send off my design ideas to Stella McCartney...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:24 AM

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

In a responsible adult manner:

1: I would not describe either Mohammed Shafiq or Alyas Karmani as being "arrogant racist strutters", incapable of discussing the subject seriously"

2: There is not a shred of evidence of a link between these few crimes and Muslim culture - nobody has ever suggested there is

Perfectly true Nobody has suggested any link to those crimes and MUSLIM culture - But you Jim Carroll have stated time and time again that people have - truth is they haven't.

3: The pimping and torture that took place in some of these crimes reduces the number to around a dozen - most were of young men with "fizzing testosterone" to quote Jack Straw, seducing young women.

Actually gangs perpetrating these crimes across eleven English cities resulted in 125 convictions, and it was found that these young men with "fizzing testosterone" were predominantly from the British-Pakistani community

4: Police and magistrates at the time said their was no link with the Muslim culture and the only in-depth survey carried out came to the same conclusion

Again perfectly true. However, you are the only person who has claimed anyone has stated that these crimes have anything to do with "Muslim culture" but have been unable to provide an example of anyone ever having done so.

5: No information has been uncovered since to suggest that these crimes were "Muslim" other than they have been committed by a handful of young men who have rejected the basic laws of their culture and have stepped away from their communities.

I would like to hear what the tenets of this supposed "Muslim" Culture are. Muslim is the word used to describe someone who subscribes to one of the many recognised sects of Islam. You constantly have refused point blank to recognise the difference between religion and culture that span some 1.8 billion Muslims inhabiting 50 Muslim majority countries - are you seriously trying to tell us there are no "ethnic" cultural differences. Had you actually travelled round this planet and worked in various Muslim countries you would have experienced an immense and marked difference and variety in local cultures but a uniformity in the practice and observance of their religion commensurate with particular requirements of the predominant sect of Islam followed.

6: All these crimes have been condemned unreservedly by the British Muslim communities.

Perfectly true, as well they should. But the crimes On-street grooming" of vulnerable young females on an almost industrial scale have NOT BEEN "documented as having been committed by non-Muslims, mainly indigenous Britons, many of them by Christians and a significant number of these by Christian clergymen using their cloth to facilitate the crimes". When the "Rochdale" story broke it was so unique and horrific it almost defied description - I can recall no other similar instance.

7: Unless they come up with serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of a "cultural implant", anybody who claims that these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form are raving racists who are contravening British law by making such a suggestion.

For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form" - That has been your misinterpretation of what has been said from the outset six years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:44 AM

I am not allowed in Asda, Steve. They have an Asda sensor at the front door of Morrisons Head Office. It would sniff out my sin and I would be excommunicated. I dread to think what would happen if I went in wearing Asda underpants but I am sure it would be painful.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:44 AM

"In a responsible adult manner"

Indeed. I had to read it twice to convince myself that it was really you. Keep it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM

One at a time
"For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
For the umpteenth time
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
" I would not describe either Mohammed Shafiq or Alyas Karmani as being "arrogant racist strutters", incapable of discussing the subject seriously"
You know as well as I do that I am referring to your (apparently terminal) arrogance and bullying – no refrence to their opines
Stop setting up straw men and add honesty to my request for adult behaviour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:49 AM

Well I proudly swan into Bude Morrisons sporting my 29p long-life Asda wine carriers. I'm no snob. I've been known to shop in Waitrose brandishing Lidl carrier bags. Let me know when Morrisons are going to put their six-quid Nero d'Avola down to five on special again. A damn good drop of red, is that, but I don't pay the proper price for wine ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM

Piss off you pair of racist pricks
Jim Carroll

Come on Jimmy, take defeat like a man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:08 AM

Dave,
I am not denying doing it. I am denying enthusiasm. You made that bit up.

How could you deny being here and doing it!?
The question is why you are doing it and why now, and you seem enthusiastic even though you deny that.

Steve,
Keith. Just back off. You're up shit creek without a paddle

Yet again you resort to abuse when you have no reply.

You gave every reason to believe you denied the over-representation in your total support for Jim.

When I asked if you still denied it you said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM

Jim, as you well know, the description "male Pakistani Muslims" was not mine.
That is how the question was put to me.
That is why that part of my post is in quotes.

Read my whole post and read the posts it was responding to.
Read it in context and all your accusations are knocked flat.

You have been making these same accusations for six years and I have given a point by point rebuttal every time.

If I was really a racist you would have more than one innocent six year old post to go on.
Open your eyes and your mind to the fact that you have misjudged me just because I always defeat you in debate.

I am no racist nor any kind of extremists.
That is why all your six year old accusations all fall flat every time you put them up again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM

I've already replied, Keith. Now why don't you put your Asda Y-fronts on outside your trousers and run down the canal towpath in Hertford shouting "Wheee! I'm Superman!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:23 AM

Very "Wheatcroftesque" did you say Shaw? - Well we all know how that ended up for you don't we? - It resulted in yourself being exposed as a blatant and barefaced liar.

If you wish to allow everybody to read through it again here it is:

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

Now then Shaw every single time you bring up any reference to "Wheatcroft" in connection to Keith A that passage above will be plastered all over the thread just so that everybody is made perfectly aware that you are - a loutish, posturing prat and a barefaced liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

"Jim, as you well know, the description "male Pakistani Muslims" was not mine."
As you well know, you have never at any time produced anybody who has ever made such a racist statement accusing all male Pakistanis of being "implanted to rape children.
I think you two had better have a site meeting to get your story straight.
On the one hand Teribus claims "For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
On the other, you continue to claim that Muslims have said just that.
"Come on Jimmy, take defeat like a man."
There you go - you have your tame troll cheering you on - using the same unimaginative language
Done forget to invite him to your site meeting
"If I was really a racist you would have more than one innocent six year old post to go on."
Brainwashed Irish - Traveller persecution - defence of Ukip racism?
You are a stereotype Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:31 AM

How could you deny being here and doing it!?

I don't. My exact words were "I am not denying doing it." You even quoted them.

The question is why you are doing it and why now, and you seem enthusiastic even though you deny that.

No idea why I am doing it. Possible masochistic tendencies. Why now? Because now is when it is happening maybe and another time would be rather anachronistic?

How on earth do you deduce that I seem enthusiastic about it though? Maybe you already put those Asda Y-Fronts on, flew at super speed up here and peered through my roof using your x-ray vision to see me leaping about with glee? You just made up the enthusiasm bit and once again will not admit your mistake.

Typical really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM

There you go folks the response to a post that did discuss the issues raised "In a responsible adult manner" (Even Steve Shaw thought so)!!!

YOU, Jim Carroll are the one not being honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

Just by way of contrast Google have marked today as the birthday of Abdul Sattar Edhi. Amazing bloke.

Wiki article

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM

Jaysus, Teribus, give it a bloody rest! Do you think that anyone outside your cabal is actually reading your tedious, repetititititive bluster? 😂😂😂

Yours in brief(s),

Steve XXX

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:15 AM

Er, Dave, I got Mary Hopkin when I clicked on that. Very nice but is it what you meant?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:30 AM

"YOU, Jim Carroll are the one not being honest."
Explain please how is
"One at a time
"For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
For the umpteenth time
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
" I would not describe either Mohammed Shafiq or Alyas Karmani as being "arrogant racist strutters", incapable of discussing the subject seriously"
You know as well as I do that I am referring to your (apparently terminal) arrogance and bullying – no refrence to their opines
Stop setting up straw men and add honesty to my request for adult behaviour"
not being honest and how did Steve comment on my posting?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:34 AM

Oooh - Sorry about that! I'll leave Mary where she is and put Abdul here.

Thanks for letting me know. I am sure we will soon have lots of posts about how stupid I must be ;-)


Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:42 AM

I preferred Mary.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

To be honest, so did I :-) I wonder what old 'Uncle Hughie' Green's thoughts were when she first showed up at the Opportunity Knocks auditions? Bet it not cultural at all...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:29 AM

On the one hand Teribus claims "For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
On the other, you continue to claim that Muslims have said just that.

We have never claimed either.
Islam and religion are not an issue in this crime, and I have been saying that since before I made that post.

Brainwashed Irish
I quoted historians who supported that criticism of Irish schools.
- Traveller persecution -
Completely made up shit.
defence of Ukip racism?
Completely made up shit.

Dave,
Why now? Because now is when it is happening

But it is always happening! Jim brings it up every few weeks and has done for six years.
You three have just never joined in before. I suppose you had not become a gang of four before.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM

Cooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeee !!

Paranoia again, the is no gang, remember.

PS The bit Dave is actually denying is the "enthusiasm" that is entirely your creation.

He has already stated this explicitly, how is it you cannot comprehend that. Is it really that difficult?

Try sending a PM to terrikins, he might be able to explain it in words you can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM

Jim,
For the umpteenth time
"Don I do " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"

But you know those were not my words.
That is why I put them in quotes.
And you know that I can PROVE that I never blamed Islam.
You know that I stated, before and after that post, that religion was not an issue.

You know that because we have been through it all before.
You put up the same, tired, old, false accusations, and I knock them all down the same old way.
What is the point Jim?

You have no case against me because I am neither racist nor extremist.
How many more threads are you going to destroy with this?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM

Still haven't. Made up like my enthusiasm. Glad to see you have dropped your other ridiculous statements and are down to one unsubstantiated claim about something that has no bearing on anything whatsoever. How is your little gang doing? How may now? You, Teribus, Iains, Bobad Ake, Dozy, Sneaky, Sick and Bitch?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:47 AM

I'm not asking you to believe this but it's true. My best mate at school was on Opportunity Knocks at the same time as Mary Hopkin and she beat him into second place. There, told you you wouldn't believe me. I found the chap you meant to link to. Cheers for that. Could do with a few more like him.

The only way to judge a man's stupidity is by a close examination of his underpants drawer. --Eric The Red, 1982

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:50 AM

The 'musical muscle man', Tony Holland, was a butcher from Roe Green - Posh bit just down the road from us. Bet all the old dears loved going in his shop to get a peek at his best cuts...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:56 AM

"You three have just never joined in before. I suppose you had not become a gang of four before."

Really? Why, you've just been asking me whether I "still deny it" and trying to pin something on me from those inglorious times, Keith! As Hughie Green would have said, it's make your mind up time! (Or was that Michael Miles...)

Actually, "make it up as you go along time" would be more like it! Fraudulent!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:58 AM

Ah, the man of the clenching buttocks! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

My mate told me that Hughie Green was an utterly arrogant, bad-tempered a-hole. That reminds me...🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:09 AM

One for the ladies though, so it has been reported. Probably culturally implanted. Wasn't he Paula Yates's Dad when everyone thought it was Bishop Jess?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

But you know those were not my words.
That is why I put them in quotes.
Don asked if that is what you believed - you confirmed it was
"And you know that I can PROVE that I never blamed Islam."
Nobody has ever suggested yo did - your claim was the Muslim, which is what we are discussing
"You put up the same, tired, old, false accusations, and I knock them all down the same old way."
You have your own quote in front of you - is it a fake?
"I am neither racist nor extremist."
Then it must have been somebody else using your name to say what was said about Irish brainwashing and Travellers - and all that support for racist Ukip........ !!
Hoist on your own petard as naval Norman will tell you
Unless you have something to say otehr than denials - don't bother
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

D THE G. To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:35 PM

A fine display of erudition and intellect, doncha think
Hit and run seems the order of the day with this here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:39 PM

To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?

WTF are you on about Iains? Seeing as neither exist apart from in the deluded minds of some members that is a particularly stupid question. The nearest description, which applies to everyone involved in both sides of this argument was Joe's description - 'The usual suspects'.

On a much better subject we just had some lovely pancakes. Decided against making them this year which is just as well because neither Mrs G nor I feel up to much at the mo. They were bought ready made crepes, heated in the microwave and delicious with a full fat cream cheese filling with assorted berries and topped with Lancashire Farm yogurt. Bit odd having a healthy(ish) pancake as it is supposed to be the last splurge before the rigours of lent. Still, seeing as we don't do lent it is no big deal :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Steve,
Why, you've just been asking me whether I "still deny it"

Not true. That is what I asked you back in 2011.
You had given every reason to believe you denied the over-representation in your total support for Jim.

You said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:49 PM

He and bobad are two cheeks of the same sorry arse. No substance, no debating skills, no-nothing trolls. Here for the fight only. Even Keith and Teribus aren't of that ilk. An arse, what's more, that even an Asda George underpant, were it sentient, would rebel against. Ignore 'em. Now they're going to swear at me, just you watch.

Reminds me of a phase that M&S went through a few years back when everything suddenly became singular. Shorts became a short. Jeans became a jean. Pants became pant. Trousers became trouser. Briefs became brief. Knickers became knicker. "Why, that looks like just the jean for me!" I was once heard to declare in the Blue Harbour aisle!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

And don't change the subject, Keith. You said we've only just joined in, now you're quoting me from 2011. Wheatcroftesque again. Over to you, Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM

Jim,

Nobody has ever suggested yo did - your claim was the Muslim, which is what we are discussing

You knowingly lie Jim.
I have never suggested that it was a Muslim issue.
I made it very clear that I did not.

I used the description "British Pakistani Muslims" because that was the description put to me, and I put it in quotes for that reason.

The "Muslim" was superfluous, but I left it in AS I HAD ALREADY MADE CLEAR THAT BEING MUSLIM WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

I had no way of knowing some lying scum would take that out of its context to try and smear me with blatant lies based on knowingly misrepresenting what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM

D the G. Glad you enjoyed the pancakes. I like mine with maple syrup.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Should probably stick to important topics like who would win a fight between Superman and Batman. They both wear their underpants on the outside don't they?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM

Steve, how dishonest you are!
And don't change the subject, Keith. You said we've only just joined in, now you're quoting me from 2011. Wheatcroftesque again.

Of course we were all in the original thread, but Jim has dredged it up many times since.
This is the first time that you have all joined in.
Now it is one for all and all for one in your little gang of musketeers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM

Odd isn't it Shaw that you mentioned arses - the only people who have made complete and utter arses of them selves on this thread have been Jim Carroll who was the person to drag this thread back to 2011, yourself responsible for the attempted deflection by spreading your 2014 "Wheatcroft" lie.

For those wondering what that was all about read on:

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:25 PM

Seems we've retreated back to the trenches
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:33 PM

An interesting response by some to my post of 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

Matthew 7:16

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:39 PM

Maple syrup is good to. Albeit a little colonial :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:43 PM

Bo-ring, Teribus! You're defending a deliberate attempt at deceit! Have you got your underpants on back to front? Or are your knickers in a twist?

You forgot John Major à la Steve Bell, Dave!

I'm told that Jeremy Kyle always goes commando. Now there's an interesting fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM

I had forgotten about that Steve - I don't really follow Steve Bell but I do recall one or two of those. Funny thing is, our erstwhile grey PM has been a bit of a star recently with his comments on Brexit. I never thought I would see that day when he would make me smile :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

Boring - you certainly are Shaw. It must be an awful burden being a serial "Gobshite".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:00 PM

D the G. It is not just Canada that produces maple syrup, there is appreciable production in the northern States of America also. That colonial title may upset our American cousins.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 04:24 PM

Don't take any notice of me then, Billy. I'd like that. In some ways it'd be less fun, admittedly, but I'm only thinking of you. You'd live a lot longer if you didn't get so agitated all the time. Very few people read what we type and a good few of THEM already hate your guts, so what's the point? Eh? Eh??

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:11 PM

I know, Iains, I know.

You know, Steve. I caught a bit of classic last of the summer wine earlier. A new customer in Sid's cafe got a right ear bashing of Ivy. When she went in the back the new customer said to Sid "Is that yours?"
On getting am affirmative answer he then asked "would it not be quicker just to cut your throat?"

It's like that here at times...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:17 PM

I have a photo of me playing the theme tune on the harmonica outside that café. You can see Compo inside! My sister lives just three miles away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM

It's not real life here, Dave. There are plenty of real people but a good few whose main outlet in life seems to be here. Thinking of our friendly neighbourhood cabal. Funny how you never hear much about their real lives...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 01:44 AM

Ah but Shaw as someone who does not like to see, and cannot "stand to see" lies, misrepresentations, myths and half-truths peddled and presented as fact in discussions on this forum I am naturally drawn to the idiotic ramblings of you and your "socialist" little gang. The other factor of course is your stalking and attempts at browbeating and bullying certain members of this forum by you and your pals.

As previously stated, on this thread and on many others you've made complete and utter arses of yourselves. I cannot think of any good reason why on earth I would wish to share any aspect or detail of my "real life" with any proven loutish, posturing, lying, prat such as yourself or any of your equally objectionable pals.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 03:25 AM

Sorry, missed a bit

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:31 AM

Iains
Your posting of "28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM " was a meaningless piece of invective which is made ridiculous by the fact that you have now become a fully paid up member o Teribus and co's Klan Storm-Troopers with their empty right wing posturings - if you cannot see the irony of referring to us as "a pack", you are even more stupid that you appear.
Your Gruppenführer, having painted himself into a corner by making claims he is unable substantiate, first retreated back into the trenches of World War One, and has now falling back to his old habit of hurling insecure abuse.
As Keith has often been heard to remark "they lost".

With that comforting thought under my belt, I'm outta here and I suggest anybody with a modicum of sense and self-respect follows suit.
This level of posting debases this forum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:33 AM

Jim has raised the old 2011 thread many, many times since then.
Previously he has had to do it on his own.
If the mods did not close it down, other folk would beg him to stop.
He would eventually issue a gushing, grovelling apology and promise not to do it again.
A few weeks later, when he was losing another argument, he would do it again.

Now he has a gang to back him up and support him, and understandably few people are prepared to take them all on.
You have created a monster!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM

Dave, anyone can type what you just did.
Responding to what has been said is harder.
Impossible for some apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:41 AM

It was a response, Keith. How better to respond to personal abuse or would you rather I respond in kind?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

What personal abuse were you responding to gnome?

It has plainly and conclusively been proven on this thread that both Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll are liars. It is an opinion of mine, but no doubt shared by others, that their behaviour is loutish and posturing, and Steve Shaw is without any doubt in my mind an objectionable, complete and utter prat.

So were you responding as a non-member of a non-clique on this forum or did you consider that you yourself had been personally abused as said non-member of that non-clique on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:21 AM

Work it out for yourself, Teribus :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM

hughie greene was nice to me. i would have been on his show - only they closed it down. it would have been a big career break for me.

no one much gives ordinary people breaks in the music business. hughie did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM

As a much more interesting topic than what has been going on here of late that is worth exploring, Al. There was 'Opportunity Knocks' and another talent show called 'New faces' if I remember rightly. What is so different between those and the the new flush of talent shows such as 'Britains got talent', 'The X Factor'. 'The Voice', etc.?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

Flashback time! I seem to remember that Lenny Henry won 'New Faces'. I think the first time he appeared he did an impression of Frank Spencer bent over a pram talking to his baby. When he turned round the audience were in stitches and Lenny had them from that moment on :-) Eeeeh. Those were the days (Back to Mary Hopkin)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM

I wasn't knocking Hughie, Al, just reporting back what my mate said!

Teribus, you need to stop ranting on about "proven liars," etc. Nobody "proves" a damn thing about anybody else on this forum. "Proofs" of the kind you propagate are predicated on half-truths, omissions, missing the point, deserting the context, personal bias, axes to grind, the need for vengeance or out-and-out misrepresentation. Every time you call me or anybody else a "proven liar" you are making an arse of yourself. It's just empty, splenetic, distempered bile and it's almost certainly pissing a damn sight more people off than those who get any satisfaction from your horrible behaviour. If you think we deserve it, keep it to yourself and demolish us via measured, careful argument. Every time you feel the steam coming out of your ears at the keyboard you need to say to yourself that you shouldn't be starting from here.

Right. Back to the show...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM

Please correct me if I am wrong here Shaw but you did state on numerous occasions on many threads that Keith A of Hertford had never corrected himself, or acknowledged that he had misquoted from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian in December 2014. Even after it had been drawn to your attention that you were in error, you still persisted with your lie - That makes you a proven liar by any definition of the word, and it should come as no surprise to you that that shall be taken into consideration with regard to anything you post to this forum.

"If you think we deserve it, keep it to yourself and demolish us via measured, careful argument." - Shaw

Good heavens Shaw it would make one hell of a departure from the norm if either yourself or your pals ever even made the slightest pretence of following that bit of advice - all we tend to get is personal abuse, no point addressed and baseless allegations and accusations that you point blank refuse to substantiate.

Oh Gnome, I worked you and your pals out a long, long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

So it was a rhetorical question? What is the point in that?

Do you actually know anything about anyone?

(Hint. See line 1)

:D tG

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

It is an opinion of mine, but no doubt shared by others, that their behaviour is loutish and posturing, and Steve Shaw is without any doubt in my mind an objectionable, complete and utter prat.

I wouldn't be quite as measured as you in my assessment of them and especially of Shaw, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM

"He would eventually issue a gushing, grovelling apology and promise not to do it again"
Like your mythical quotes Keith, you are welcome to produce any of them here.
Your complaints about being persecuted are comparable to someone complaining about having their fingers trapped in a letterbox they were attempting to pour petrol through
Your dishonesty and lack of self-respect appear to have no limits.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 10:36 AM

well they're all a lot more media savvy than we were. they have internalised the three minute telebyte culture.

i turned for my audition very hung over, there had been wedding the day before and i have vague memories of getting slung out of the red lion folk club, after the festivities

anyway Denise kicked me out of bed and i crawled into this birmingham hotel, where they held the audition. Etched on my mind was the experience of going in the bog for a wee, and two young guys in sky blue outfits and white tap shoes singing and dancing at my side, Iwanna be happy, but i won't be happy...while i tried to squeeze out a few drops.

upstairs was a table with hughie, a tape op, and peter dulay who used to do candid camera sitting behind a desk. i presented my letter, but i had to wait. first a fat lady - idon't suppose she was that old - but 5foot 4, and twenty three stone in a gold lame dress that had seen better days. you shook yourself - this was ten o'clock in the morning singing Let's Do It...
this was before stage schools were on every street corner. this young lass in a leotatrd came on singing and dancing, good morning! good morning! from singing inthe rain. thirty seconds in - she ran out pf puff - should she dance or sing? debbie reynolds made it look so easy! there were no backing tapes in those days - so then came a lady who didn't like the piano accompaniment provided...tough shit!
then it was me. i sang my best friend - the don williams song, and they liked me. took my picture -no video in those days!. made a recording. my plan was to do Eric Bogle on the show - but hughie got the heave ho and english folk music was denied a new megastar. such is life!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:38 PM

Jimmie.
Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:51 PM

Hi Iains,

I really do not think that biblical quotations have any place in the 21st century.

I have not looked up your passages purely on that basis.

If you have a faith, fine, your issue not mine, but please do not expect me to take any notice of it.

Could I ask, if you have a statement to make, you could make it relevant to the present day and not based on what I consider to be fairy stories.

Please note I do not intend to offend you by saying this.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:09 PM

Hypocrisy from a blatant anti-Semite? How shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:58 PM

Iains
on't believe in fairy stories Jockie
You have had a rational statement politely put yet you still insist in trying to talk to peole from your hole in the ground
Shows real intellect
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM

This could well be my last shot at this (for now), Teribus, but let me try to concentrate your mind and help you to not miss the point. Keith stated that "the Guardian" had said that Taylor's book was "fraudulent." You OK with that? Good! Do you realise that the article said NO SUCH THING? Good! Now a week earlier, Keith had quoted a lump of the Guardian piece (which was penned by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, NOT "the Guardian"), including the relevant passage, IN A DIFFERENT THREAD. You OK with that? Good! Not only that, Keith had also made ANOTHER REFERENCE to the piece (a highly-inaccurate one, but hey) in that earlier thread, yeah? Good! So, when Keith referred to the passage, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE OTHER THREAD, on the 16th, saying that "the Guardian" (lie) had called Taylor's book "fraudulent," (lie) he was clearly trying to reinforce his fatuous point that only living historians from the last thirty years should be listened to. This was no mistake. Keith was doing what Keith always does. He was making a claim that he hoped no-one would pick up on. He reckoned without Sherlock Shaw, of course. To claim, as you are doing, that this was some kind of accidental error that Keith then gracefully and promptly corrected is just about the most naive thing imaginable. Keith knew the piece, had quoted the piece, and had DELIBERATELY misquoted it in the hope that he would get away with it. Which he would have, save for the fact that, unfortunately for him, I'd also read the article on the 9th. Without my picking up on it, there would have been NO retraction from Keith. Not only that, the retractions from Keith you're so keen on quoting at us do not even restore the qualifying adjectives, RATHER vulgar and LARGELY fraudulent. That makes Keith's retractions reluctant and downright curmudgeonly at best, even though he knew full well that he'd been sussed over his dishonesty. A man caught out who doesn't like being caught out. The trouble is, Teribus, is that we seem to know Keith and his ways a damn sight better than you do. And please stop calling me a liar on this matter, otherwise, well, I could consider reposting this post every time you do, though I'll probably rise above such bloody childishness, unlike you.

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

"A man caught out who doesn't like being caught out." - Sherlock Shaw

Very true and this latest post of yours - Steve Shaw - 01 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM - proves it.

Whatever you type, whatever you contend, no matter how much you wriggle, twist and turn Shaw - NOTHING alters the FACT that since December 2014 you have deliberately misrepresented the situation and LIED about Keith A of Hertford NEVER having corrected himself and acknowledged the error. If you doubt that then here it is again:

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

A downright LIE that you now AFTER just over two years you appear to be walking back on in your latest post - "That makes Keith's retractions reluctant and downright curmudgeonly at best" - Sherlock Shaw 1st March 2017.

I also note now that your pedantry and outraged semantic senses are now in an uproar about the words "rather" and "largely" - Don't make an even bigger idiotic spectacle of yourself than you already have - something is either viewed as being "vulgar" or it is not - something is viewed as being "fraudulent" or it is not - qualifiers such as "rather" and "largely" are immaterial, especially considering the number of times the entire passage, word perfect, was posted five times in that "I am not an historian but..." thread.

By the way Shaw please do feel free to keep posting that tripe - it serves as a massive confession and highlights your dishonesty especially as the "How Steve Shaw......." passage will be posted immediately after it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:26 AM

something is either viewed as being "vulgar" or it is not - something is viewed as being "fraudulent" or it is not - qualifiers such as "rather" and "largely" are immaterial

So, would it be true to say that most posts on this thread are rather pointless or largely bollocks? From what you say about rather and largely being immaterial should we be saying completely pointless and total bollocks? I think that some of the posts have a point and some are valid but, if what you say is true, then we should not be using such qualifiers and everything is either is either black or white, with no shades of grey between. Do you not think that is part of the problem here? Some people will not accept that there can be some right and some wrong with most things?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

... something is either viewed as being "vulgar" or it is not - something is viewed as being "fraudulent" or it is not - qualifiers such as "rather" and "largely" are immaterial...

No they are not! 😂😂😂 Carry on like this and I'll set Geoffrey Wheatcroft on you! And show Keith the bit in bold - after all, he tried to pull the wool over our eyes with that very word!

Yours truly, Call-Me-Sherlock

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

Steve,
- after all, he tried to pull the wool over our eyes with that very word!

You are being blatantly dishonest in your desperation to get something on me.
There was no deception and no attempt at it by me, only by you.

I quoted the passage in full.
It rubbished the books that your side clung to.
I had no need to misquote.
You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM

Keith, do you still not understand that no one is trying to get anything on you? These discussions simply do not matter that much. It is like we are two different species trying to communicate. If it makes you feel any happier please feel free to take the role of the higher intelligence trying communicate with us dumb creatures. I really could not give a toss what you or anyone on here thinks of me because the ones that really count are the ones that know me and I can talk to without it becoming a battle. Now, do you not feel it would be better all round if all attempts at talking to those you obviously consider lesser mortals was to stop? I am willing to give it a go if you are.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM

D the G
"Some people will not accept that there can be some right and some wrong with most things?"
How very right you are!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM

Or maybe only partly right? :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM

Dave,
Keith, do you still not understand that no one is trying to get anything on you?

Really Dave?
Steve rakes up that 2014 thread in a desperate attempt to smear me as a liar.
Jim rakes up the 2011 thread in a desperate attempt to smear me as a racist.
They both do it whenever they are losing an argument.

These discussions simply do not matter that much.

They do if you are the one being attacked and smeared, especially when there are four of you acting as a gang doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:01 AM

So, people you do not care about and know even less say something about you that you dislike and you spend hours and hours trying to defend your 'honour' from attacks on a forum that few people read and even less could give a fuck about?

Well, it is folk music forum so I guess I can use a song

Who's the fool now?

Enjoy

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM

Keep wriggling Shaw you still remain a loutish, posturing, barefaced liar.

So you're going to "set Geoffrey Wheatcroft on me" are you Shaw?? That would be interesting to see precisely how you would go about doing that and what you might expect him to do.

Dave the Gnome - 02 Mar 17 - 04:26 AM

"So, would it be true to say that most posts on this thread are rather pointless or largely bollocks? From what you say about rather and largely being immaterial should we be saying completely pointless and total bollocks?"

Well Gnome you'd have to further identify them by author - Yours vary from being "rather" to "completely" pointless while Shaw's tend to be "largey" to "totally" bollocks, to use Steve's own expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:07 AM

BTW - I have been at the receiving end of all manner of unpleasantness, including one person trying to draq my family into it and then wishing me a slow and painful death. As well as having my identity cloned on Facebook by those nice people on the right that you love to defend. You are not the only one to get this treatment and I would advise that there are much better things to do in this world than this.

Hope this helps

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:09 AM

That is fine by me Teribus. If you chose to respond to pointless posts and complete bollocks then that is entirely up to you. The question at the end of my 02 Mar 17 - 07:01 AM post applies equally to you :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

Certainly are better things to do Dave. I've just finished my last batch of marmalade for this year. I now have over 70 jars sitting on my kitchen top. A nice donation for the Rescue Boat once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:29 AM

Bloody cold and draughty in Radcliffe Asda car park. And now Mother wants to go to Whitefield Morrisons. Woe is me!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:29 AM

Sounds brilliant, Raggy. I have not tried your marmalade yet - Will there be any left at Whitby FF time?

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

Should try Swinton, Steve. Morrisons is directly across the road from Asda and next door to Aldi. May make a nice change for your Mum too.

Cheers

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Dave,
So, people you do not care about and know even less say something about you that you dislike and you spend hours and hours trying to defend your 'honour' from attacks on a forum that few people read and even less could give a fuck about?

Instead of suggesting it a waste of time to deny false accusations of racism and lying against me, why not suggest to the false accusers that they stop doing it?

And how about you not joining in with them next time they do it?

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

I quoted the passage in full.
It rubbished the books that your side clung to.
I had no need to misquote.

That's precisely why he and Carroll continually deflect with lies and misrepresentation and dredge up ancient posts. They cannot accept that they are ever wrong about anything - that's the problem with ideologues, they cling to their ideology in the face of facts that show them wrong else their entire house of cards come tumbling down.

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

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

Cheers

DtG

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

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

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

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

Cheers

D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychiatrists at the ready !!!!

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

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

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


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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

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

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

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

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

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

Hope this helps!

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Raggytash.
Isaiah 5:21

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

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

You are another

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

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

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

:D tG

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

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

Of course not. What a ludicrous idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of that is true.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

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

1000!

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

:D tG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

Iains,

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

You may think this is my loss.

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

Cheers

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

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

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

As you say, different morality.
Yours is shit.

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

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

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

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

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

I have absolutely no sympathy with you at all.

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

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

Your problem, not mine/

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my brief conversations with Dave he assuredly does not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you say, different morality.
Yours is shit.

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

Cheers

DtG

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

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Shaw.

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

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

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

Here is another one:

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap

But Steve what is this?

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 04:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

PS This forum is not real life.

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

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

As you say, different morality.
Yours is shit.

Yes, your morality is different. Absent actually.

Both from Keith. Just above here.

:D tG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

:D tG

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

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

:D tG

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

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

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

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

Cheers

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon link here

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

:D tG

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

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

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

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

Himalayan Garden, Grewelthorpe

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 10:32 AM

just spotted yet another, how shall we put it to be kind, 'misrepresentation' :-)

You say that everyone should be free to use any tactics to silence someone with differing views.

I have never said anything like that. I have never advocated violence or threats for instance. If I have ever said that anyone should be free to use 'any tactic', I would like see where!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 10:56 AM

Jim,
Stalins main victims were "the left"

Not true. Then there was Mao and the Kims.

Wsan't talking about "here" - I was referring to right wing politics

We were talking about members here.
Just Centre Left and Centre Right.
The very people who chose, hopeless as it seemed, to make a stand against Hitler when the Far Left were in bed with him!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 10:58 AM

Must be the tablets.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:06 AM

Rag, tell your friend to stop taking them then.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:23 AM

I have an idea for a new game show.

"My dictator is better than yours"

You pick from your favourite extremist dictator and, from a set of pre-defined criteria and without knowing each others choice, chose whichever aspect you think will beat the opponents. Things like 'People Killed', 'Countries invaded', 'Human rights removed' or 'Wars started'. Sort of like the 'Top Trumps' card games where you pit football players or cars against each other. To add interest the winner gets to chose the method to eradicate the loser, their family and whatever cultural demographic they support.

Probably shouldn't mention it to Donald Trump. Although he may be added as a choice in the not too distant future.

:D tG

BTW - For those who take these things literally, that was a joke. But it is based on the ridiculous premise that any dictator can be justified by saying he is not as bad as another.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM

Can't speak for anyone else (remember we are not gang/mob/clique etc etc) but I think you've lost the plot.

A rest before you next post might be advisable.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:36 AM

That could SO be to me Raggy :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 11:54 AM

LOL, relax Dave, not aimed at yourself as I'm sure you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 12:40 PM

"Not true. "
Go find a decent historian Keith
Stalin removed all the socialists from the Soviet leadership and had the main one, Leon Trotsky, murdered
Stalinism has sweet fulck all to do with Socialism - it was a system gone wrong, whith Stalin the main cause of its downfall
On the other hand, Hitler was supported into power by German Capitalism - it was a natural progression of the defeat of the left in Germany
The main supporters of Nazism were the giant companies - Krupps and Essen among the greatest, along with numerous American financiers   
E. Roland Harriman Vice president of W. A. Harriman & Co., New York
H.J. Kouwenhoven Nazi banker, managing partner of August Thyssen Bank and Bank voor Handel Scheepvaart N.V. (the transfer bank for Thyssen's funds)
J. G. Groeningen Vereinigte Stahlwerke (the steel cartel which also funded Hitler)
C. Lievense President, Union Banking Corp., New York City
E. S. James Partner Brown Brothers, later Brown Brothers, Harriman & Co.
Politicians in Britain, included Churchill, while not becoming directly involved, appeased the rise of German fascism, looking on "New Germany to act as a bulwark against Bolshevism"
America's greatest ally in Vietnam was self proclaimed Hitler admirer, Marshall Kee, the murderous Greek Junta, supported by Britain and the Chilean fascists, led by Mrs Thatcher's friend, mass murderer, Augusto Pinochet were all extreme right wing dictatorships
We know exactly how "cenrte" your right-wingism is.
Dream on Keith - fascism is the province of the right - and remained so throughout the 20th century.
Jim Carroll

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

Jim,
"Not true. "
Go find a decent historian Keith

How about backing up your claims with evidence for once?

Stalins main victims were "the left"

Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various "political crimes" from 1946 to 1953.

And remember Jim that Stalin was Hitler's ally when they both invaded Poland, and the far left here cheered them on.

Dave,
But it is based on the ridiculous premise that any dictator can be justified by saying he is not as bad as another.

That is a ridiculous premise, but who has made it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 02:08 PM

Dunno, Keith. You are the font of all knowledge. I am just an immoral shit.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 02:34 PM

I'll model the underpants, Dave, as soon as I've had my next Brazilian and have secured the right to have the caption "Down, girls!" placed at the bottom of every shot.

Thread summary:

Keith starts silly thread, having the usual ulterior motives.

Keith defends the indefensible.

Teribus defends both the indefensible and Keith, who is already indefensible.

Teribus gets obsessively repetitive, forgets to tell the truth, misses points left right and centre, gets all irrelevant, then defends Keith again.

Teribus attacks anyone who is not slightly to the right of Mussolini. This is repeated ad nauseam. We know who we are.

Keith maintains his efforts to make thread all about him then complains that we are making thread all about him.

Teribus and Keith maintain that lies told years ago are OK because they are no longer lies.   

Too many normal, sane people, known as the gang/mob/pack, etc., get sucked in and thereby threaten their own sanity.

Steve writes to mod asking for insane thread to be closed.

Teribus and Keith crow that we're only trying to get thread closed because we haven't got an argument.

Keith says "you lose."

Teribus comes up with spittle-flecked rant and alt-truth version of thread summary. Unless Keith beats him to it.

(The last four points haven't happened yet. Stop me if you dare!)

Sherlock

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 03:04 PM

"How about backing up your claims with evidence for once?"
You are one of those who whinge that I provide too much evidence
Make up yourr mind
You'll find that everything I have4 said is fully verifiable from any historian.
The list of Hitlers backers are official
The assassination of Trotskt=y in Mexico is an incontrovertible fact
Britain's appeasement of Germany is part of our history
"And remember Jim that Stalin was Hitler's ally"
And remember that Stalin was Britain's Ally - Good old Uncle Joe - Russia having been previously invaded by fourteen countries, including Britain, in order to assist the return of the Tzar
Pissss off Keith - you have no concept of history other than that you have gleaned to "win" something.
We have argued every last one of these points ad nauseum - you failed to "win" then - little chance of you "winning now.
I do not defend what Stalin did, he betrayed the left in doing what he did.
You seem to forget that Russia only had a revolution to escape the mindless Imperial bloodbath of World War One.
Piss of and go and persecute Muslim families that can't fight back - that seems to be what turns you on.
Jim Carroll

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

The rant and delusions of someone trapped by a bankrupt ideology.

Thread Summary

Born out of two previous threads that were both closed down
1: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
Opened by Keith A of Hertford

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 03:49 AM

Only a few months into JC's leadership and they are in real trouble.
What is it with the hard left and anti-semitism?

By way of explanation Ken Livingston had just been suspended by the Labour Party for making anti-Semitic remarks.

On this thread, Jim attacked Israel on 29 Apr 16 - 06:23 AM.

The thread was closed one post after this from Steve Shaw:

Steve Shaw - 05 Oct 16 - 02:01 PM

There are now two Labour threads. This one is utterly toxic and infested by trolls. We don't need two threads. I appeal to the moderators to shut this one down.

2: Labour Party Discussion
Opened by MGOH and closed by Joe Offer with an explanatory note appended to the last post from Steve Shaw:
I don't care who's right and who's wrong - I just want the fighting to stop.
Thread closed. Feel free to start a new thread on the subject, but don't open old wounds. Talk about the frickin' subject."

On the subject of opening old wounds on this thread Jim Carroll attacked Israel on 15 Aug 16 - 02:40 AM.

3: Uk Labour Party discussion II
Keith A opened it after MGOH's thread had been closed

As to opening old wounds on this thread:
Who was it brought up an off topic thread from 2011 - Jim Carroll
Who was it dragged up an off topic thread from 2014 - Steve Shaw

In the course of this thread - on off topic subjects that they themselves introduced - both have been exposed as liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 04:00 PM

I'm a prophet! I'm a prophet! 🕺🏻


🕵🏼‍♀️

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 04:48 PM

No Shaw simply a dissembling liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM

And you're just a big pile of poo! Nyah nyah na nyah nyah!

       💩
      💩💩
   💩💩💩
💩💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:25 PM

You may be a prophet but can you make a profit? Like Keith says, I'm just an immoral shit so I suppose I am allowed to scrounge money off you?

Maybe a percentage of the money you make modelling underpants?

In the immortal (or is it immoral) words of Mrs Doyle

Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.

I'm sure someone will...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:31 PM

(UK) Whither the Labour Party
Opened by Keith A of Hertford

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 03:49 AM

On this thread, Jim attacked Israel on 29 Apr 16 - 06:23 AM

This perfectly illustrates the persistence and obsessiveness of Jew hating ideologues. It reminds me of a time on Mudcat with a different group of the same persuasion. IIRC it was during another war where Israel was forced to defend itself against Hamas attacking it. That, as usual, spawned several 1000+ post threads with the self proclaimed champions of justice railing against "Israeli" atrocities. The discussion got around to why the focus on Israel when there are so many atrocities going on in the world at the time, Darfur etc. The then "usual suspects" proclaimed themselves to be just as concerned about those as well despite there being no threads on that topic let alone 1000+ ones denouncing them. That led me to start a thread titled something like "Atrocities Other than Israeli" to give them opportunity to show us their concern about all the other injustices going on in the world, not only Israel's . Well, as you can probably guess, it took but all of three or four posts to that thread before Israel was brought into it. And they try to make everyone believe that they are not Jew haters.....lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 07:44 PM

You're another pile of poo too, poobad!

Nyah nyah na nyah nyah!

       💩
      💩💩
   💩💩💩
💩💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 08:03 PM

Hey Shaw, love the self portraits, they capture your essence, if you know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 08:18 PM

Well Dave, me Mum always buys a Big Issue off t'bloke who's always outside Prestwich M&S Simply Food. She sez to me this affy, hey Steve, 'ave yer got change for t'Big Issue man? Ah sez back, yeah, how much d'yer need? She sez two quid. Ah sez TWO QUID? TWO BLOODY QUID??! That's not "change," ah sez! My idea o' change is an absolute max of 47p. Owt above that is brass, not "change." Any 'ow, I 'ad ter stump up. Two bloody quid down on t'deal. Bloody good job I'm not a tyke, otherwise I'd 'a slit me own bloody throat wi' rusty machete by now!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 08:23 PM

Bobad pobad poobad poorbad poorbear poobear poor hair pube hair poo sticks poor bastard. Say goodnight to the folks, Poor Do! You don't matter! Live with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 09:15 PM

You don't matter! Live with it!

Your obsession with me says otherwise but you're probably just playing hard to get. I'm always up for the challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 09:26 PM

Ooh darling! Hard to get is what I am! I'm not your type! I poo-poo you, booboo!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Mar 17 - 09:39 PM

Poo poo is it Stevie, sorry but that's not my predilection, but whatever turns you on. Who am I to judge?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 01:06 AM

Further examples of what you consider to be "measured and careful argument" there Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 03:30 AM

I think Steve has finally found his true level, Mr T.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 03:53 AM

"This perfectly illustrates the persistence and obsessiveness of Jew hating ideologue"
Do I have to remind you of your claiming that all Palestinians refusing to leave the area Israel claims as its own should be exterminated, or that Bedouins should be herded into compounds and made to wear identification tags, or chemical weapons should be used to keep pPalestinians in order, or the massive cut-'n-paste you7 dredged from fascist sites like Muslim Watch and The White Supremacist claiming that Arabs were't fit to de described as humans?
Please take your antisemitic linking of criticism of Israel with hatred of the Jews elsewhere and come back when you are prepared to criticise your friend's claim that Jews in Parliament would rather defend their party than expose antisemitism
You are a hypoctite as well as an antisemite
Jim Carroll

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

Like a spiral in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever spinning reel

I am sure that everything that is going to be said has been, everything that is going to be misrepresented has been misrepresented and everyone has accused everyone else of everything by now. Best just get on with things that have not been introduced yet. Just by way of ideas -

1. Quantum mechanics
2. The role of the pigs bladder in medieval mystery plays
3. James Bond

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Bigish
Bigish who?
No thanks I have already bought one.

DtG

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

"I am sure that everything that is going to be said has been, "
I couldn't agree more Dave - then why prolong it and continue to give this squalid bunch the attention they are seeking ?
They'll die of the bordome generated by their own company if we don't respond to tham
To borrow Keith's memorable phrase "my job's done here"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 05:08 AM

I know, Jim, but I feel we are doing a service. Bit like care in the community I suppose.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 05:30 AM

"I know, Jim, but I feel we are doing a service."
I'd let 'Mind' or 'The Percy Bilton' charities deal with that one if I were you Dave
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM

So, I've been away for a week or two - what conclusion have you all come to? Reached any kind of agreement, compromise or accommodation?

Thought not. See ya in another couple of weeks...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

Well, BWM, I have reached the conclusion that it is not worth trying to communicate with some and is is far easier just to sit back and enjoy the ride :-)

Speaking of which. Been anywhere nice?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 02:48 PM

"enjoy the ride :-)
Speaking of which. Been anywhere nice?"
Bet he want to Alton Towers!!
Jim Carroll

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

Never been to Alton Towers in my life, Jim - my idea of absolute hell!

When I said I'd been away, I meant 'away from Mudcat'. I've been trying to wean myself off this mad-house, and this is about the longest I've ever managed.

But, if you regard sessions, a singaround or two, playing a couple of gigs, and attending an Archie Fisher concert as 'nice' (and I do!), then I've been to several 'somewheres nice'!

TTFN. I'll try not to be back, but I can't guarantee it.

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

Knock knock

Who's there?

Big Issue!

Bless you!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 06:13 PM

I've decided, in my infinite wisdom, to not ask the mods to shut this thread. There are far better ways of defeating the gentlemen to our far-right. Ridicule, recipes, wild flowers, joviality, Yorkshire Dales, jokes, calling them piles of poo...that's the way to do it! Show them that we are humanity personified and invite them to join the human race! They lose! There can be no more vile threads! Sherlock Steve and his merry band/gang/mob/pack will subvert at will! Mods, you can retire!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 07:02 PM

Had a fabulous weekend raising monies for the Runswick Bay Rescue Boat.

Brill !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 17 - 07:49 PM

I was with you in spirit, Raggytash, and I was even up north, but I had to give Mother priority (as ever). Just to say that the rather flippant-sounding account of the incident outside Prestwich M&S Simply Food was accurate in every detail!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 04:18 AM

"TTFN. I'll try not to be back, but I can't guarantee it."
Ah Cmon Backie
Is it something we said?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 01:28 PM

Sounds better than spittle flecked rants, lies and historians, Steve. If we are going to be an official band of outlaws can we all have new names? If so can I be Friar Tuck? Spoonerised if possible :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 01:37 PM

BTW. Don't follow that link I gave you for underpants. You will be plagued by adverts for what I can only refer to as gentleman's lingerie. Unless you want to buy something special to wear for Mrs Steve?:-)

Are spittle flecked rants like little speckled pants?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 03:42 PM

Well without underpants I would have unsupported assertions, though things are getting less assertive the older I get... 😳 Unfortunately, I still have an unopened five-pairs-for eight-quid Asda pack of bebuttoned boxers, so I'm currently not in the knicker market. Friar Tuck? Tria F**k? I'm not offering to be Maid Marian, pal!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 04:13 PM

You can be Robin of the Hood, yo Steve. Raggy - Fancy the job of Will Scarlett? Jim, that leaves Little John for you.

Anyone can make Marion. (Sexist, I know. Sorry. Poor puns are my forte.)

Keith can be The Sheriff of Knotty Ash, Teribus can be Prince John (American terminology) and Ake can be a cute Guy of Gisbum posing in see through boxers :-)

Boy, this beats politics into a cocked hat.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 04:22 PM

Could I opt to be Alan-a-Dale

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 04:27 PM

You can be anything you like, Raggy, but I must warn you that the anagram of Alan-a-Dale is AA Land Ale.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 17 - 04:52 PM

Reminds me of an incident in the late seventies when I was an Inner London Teachers' Association delegate at a London NUT meeting. My old mucker Blair Peach was my co-conspirator at that meeting and we sat at the back of the hall as the chairperson called a register, forced by the right wing (aka the communists - honest! 😂), in order to make sure that the upcoming vote on industrial action was going to be fair (things were fraught like that in those gloriously militant times). It took ages for all eighty names to be called and there was a goodly amount of insolent piss-taking during the proceedings. One of the delegates was called Littlejohn (he lived on a canal narrowboat as I recall). The chairman called "Littlejohn?" and yer man called "Present!" Before the chairman could call the next name, Blair, who had a bad stammer but triumphantly overcame it on that occasion, bellowed "Friar Tuck?" and the whole place collapsed in utter mirth. Those were the days!

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

I would not normally refresh a thread that had run it's course (several times over), however time and time again we read of child abuse by the clergy and by teachers.

Here is yet another, was this person doing the abuse because of "culture" or was he doing it because he was both a TEACHER and a VICAR. Is the culture of these groups responsible.

Link

Could I suggest that each time you read of such an occurance that they are posted here in order to get a balanced view of this problem.

Teachers and vicars do seem to be a major factor in child abuse, perhaps someone who has been a teacher and is a practicing member of a church could throw light on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 02:27 AM

What problem would that be Raggy?

Let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples

On-street grooming, abduction, multiple-rape, prostitution, human trafficking, torture. Those were the catalogue of charges successfully brought against 125 men in eleven English cities. In Rotherham alone it involved over 1,400 victims whose predators were protected by "political correctness" gone mad. When the case in Rotherham broke after years of social services, the local authority and the police "looking the other way" there were over 300 suspects.

Now what "balanced view" are you attempting to illustrate?

According to your link two instances of child abuse over an 18 month period over 30 years ago. Same person found NOT Guilty of a further six instances during the same period.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 03:38 AM

T, If you do not understand my reference you are even dimmer than I took you to be.

If you don't comprehend this, I would suggest you stay out of the discussion/debate (delete as applicable)and leave it to people who do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

What's to understand Raggy - you are, as usual, comparing apples to oranges. As to demonstrating dimness

"Here is yet another, was this person doing the abuse because of "culture" or was he doing it because he was both a TEACHER and a VICAR. Is the culture of these groups responsible."

What groups? What is the "culture" of a vicar or a teacher when it's at home Raggy?

"I would suggest you stay out of the discussion/debate (delete as applicable)and leave it to people who do."

And I would suggest Raggy that you take your own pig-ignorant advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:57 AM

Well bless my soul, Teri cannot figure out what culture means.

Look it up.

(Mind you, when he has the intelligence you would normally find in a culture in a Petri dish, it is not too surprising.)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM

"On-street grooming, abduction, multiple-rape, prostitution, human trafficking, torture."
Caried out by a handful of criminals - nothing to do with a culture - certainly not one which condemns sex outside of marriage
Ignoring the facts of tehse crimes and blaming it on a racial/cultural group makes you and Keiuth the racists that you are
Ninety odd percent of crimes against children are commited by members of the indideonous culture - making British culture - what exactly?
On-street grooming is an opportunist technique usd by a small number of criminals in a certain situation - no-one has at any time suggested it is a cultural trait, other than those of the rabid right, such as yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

OK Raggy I understand that you are incapable of answering even the simplest of questions raised by your "contribution"

1: Islam is a religion practiced by over 1.8 billion people spread throughout the world - there is no such thing as "Muslim" culture.

2: Being a vicar is a job/calling/vocation as such it is supposedly governed by Christian principles and teaching - not a "culture"

3: Being a teacher is a job/profession/vocation there is no specific "culture" among those employed as such.

The only culture you probably ever encountered would be those thriving at the bottom of those pots and pans you did such a poor job of cleaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:31 AM

"On-street grooming, abduction, multiple-rape, prostitution, human trafficking, torture."
Caried out by a handful of criminals - nothing to do with a culture - certainly not one which condemns sex outside of marriage
Ignoring the facts of tehse crimes and blaming it on a racial/cultural group makes you and Keiuth the racists that you are

That's precisely it in a nutshell. Well said, Jim. Succinct, to the point. I can't think that anything else needs to be said on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:32 AM

Got me italicising in a muddle there!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:42 AM

Teri, look up the definition of culture.

I think you will find that any group of people can have one, be they teachers or vicars.

OK just this once, just for you.

"As a defining aspect of what it means to be human, culture is a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of phenomena that are transmitted through social learning in human societies. The word is used in a general sense as the evolved ability to categorize and represent experiences with symbols and to act imaginatively and creatively. This ability arose with the evolution of behavioral modernity in humans around 50,000 years ago, and is often thought to be unique to humans, although some other species have demonstrated similar, though much less complex, abilities for social learning. It is also used to denote the complex networks of practices and accumulated knowledge and ideas that is transmitted through social interaction and EXIST IN SPECIFIC HUMAN GROUPS, or cultures, using the plural form. Some aspects of human behavior, such as language, social practices such as kinship, gender and marriage, expressive forms such as art, music, dance, ritual and religion, and technologies such as cooking, shelter and clothing are said to be cultural universals, found in all human societies. The concept of material culture covers the physical expressions of culture, such as technology, architecture and art, whereas the immaterial aspects of culture such as principles of social organisation (including practices of political organization and social institutions), mythology, philosophy, literature (both written and oral), and science make up the intangible cultural heritage of a society.[6]

(ps my emphasis in capitals)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 06:16 AM

The is a crude racist dejavu aspect to all this
Both of these right-wing fanatics have put in a great deal of effort trying to prove that the actions of several hundred criminals means that an entire population of a million and a half people are infected with a trend to rape underage girls
Just like all those "darkies" over here to take our women and jobs
Their attitude to racism is transparently politically motivated.
The Labour party is accused of racism - howls in support, despite the lack of basic evidence = "We accuse you of being a thief, but we are not going to tell you what you've stolen".
When the Conservatives are accused of Islamophobia and do nothing about ti - total silence, despite requests to respond.
So their "racism" appears to only be racist when it's carried out by the left.
When the Tories are accused of similar and appoint a racist Foreign Secretary, that's just Tories being Tories.
Wonder where the victims of racism feature in all of this, other than being used as political pawns in a game of racist and right wing extremism?
Keith's disgusting suggestion, far from helping rid Britain of criminals, encourages other crimes such as racial persecution.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:24 AM

"Ignoring the facts of tehse crimes and blaming it on a racial/cultural group makes you and Keiuth the racists that you are"

My prediction here is that the question I am about to ask will go unanswered as so many have done before but here goes anyway:

When Sherlock have either Keith A or myself blamed any crime on a "racial/cultural" group as you put it? I certainly know that both Keith A and myself have quoted various spokespersons from the British Muslim community who very publicly have asked the question as to why there seems to be a disproportionate number of perpetrators from a specific group among the 125 men convicted, but that was as far as it goes, their question still remains unanswered (It was that question that Keith A asked for comments on).

One single post of mine where I apportioning blame will suffice.

I believe that the complaint related to Islamophobia directed at the Conservative Party that was made by a member of the British Council of Muslims was investigated and found to be groundless. This was a complaint by someone outside the Conservative Party as opposed to the complaints of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party that were made by Jews who were members of the Labour Party.

Oh Raggy - Culture in the context we are talking about:

the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society:
e.g. - "Afro-Caribbean culture" · "people from many different cultures"

synonyms: civilization · society · way of life · lifestyle · customs · traditions · heritage · habits · ways · mores · values"

Sorry Raggy Vicars and Teachers ain't listed. Vicars and Teachers are not in themselves "a particular people or society"

By the way Raggy is it typical of "liberal Left wing socialists" who are supposed to respect worth, equality and the dignity of labour to denigrate fellow workers as, how did you put it? - dead beats and no-hopers - as you have done on another thread. But there again Raggy you are only the "little Sir Echo" of that other champion of the left - Jim Carroll - who believes that people should "know their place" and that there is such a thing as a "pecking order". Hypocrites and liars seem to be the qualifications for your little band.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:33 AM

Don't tell him, Pike!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:58 AM

Unsurprisingly your knowledge of sociology is as limited as your knowledge of anything even vaguely academic. A typical response from an uneducated oaf ........... I don't understand it, it must be crap. Thus your inclusion of it in "Liberal left wing socialists"

If you could understand it you would find that a culture can be defined in many ways and for many groups, e.g. a nation of people or a group who meet down the pub on a Friday night.

I don't expect you to be able to understand it nor to realise there are some right wing sociologist even one who claimed that the Black American population were educationally inferior.

Needless to say when other people checked his findings he had deliberately skewed the figure to back up his assumptions.

Sort of thing you and the professor do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:14 AM

Correction.

The research I was referring to was about the working class population of Britain. (Professor Cyril Burt)

Other research has been used to claim a racial inferiority of Black Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 09:54 AM

"Needless to say when other people checked his findings he had deliberately skewed the figure to back up his assumptions.

Sort of thing you and the professor do." - Raggy

Only thing is Raggy the lot of you have been trying for years now and you have yet to come up with anything that can contradict any details, figures or facts that we have used in argument against the crap posted by such as yourself.

Vicars and Teachers still do not constitute what is commonly understood to be a "culture" - no matter how much you waffle on Raggy - what were you doing at that college in Oxford Raggy? Cleaning the corridors? For someone who keeps telling us all about his supposed education you show very little signs of showing any grasp of detail or of being able to muster any sort of counter argument in debate/discussion (Delete as you see fit).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM

I sense a slight change there from Vicars and Teachers do not have a culture to not having a culture that is "commonly understood"

Make your mind up.

All groups have a culture the police, the armed forces, that set of lads in the pub on a Saturday night and teachers and vicars.

Now given that teachers and vicars are commonly found to have abused children it begs the question is it part of their culture.

Given that I only know of one person on this forum who has both been a teacher and is a practicing Christian maybe he could tell us if it is part of his culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 10:06 AM

"Only thing is Raggy the lot of you have been trying for years now and you have yet to come up with anything that can contradict any details, figures or facts that we have used in argument against the crap posted by such as yourself."

Only thing is Teribus that none of us ostrichocracy brigade can ever say a damn thing that you won't find a way of contradicting for ideological, bitterness or jealousy reasons (and guess what you're going to say next!). So we're getting to the point at which we find ourselves to be less and less arsed as time goes by. And yes! WE! US!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 10:11 AM

Speak for yourself Steve, like Groucho Marx I have never wanted to be a member of a club that would have me, and I will say that for all of us.

Cos I can !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 10:17 AM

Sorry, mate. My head was in the sand there for a sec...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM

"was investigated and found to be groundless."
Utter crap - there is no evidence that it was ever discussed
Does it matter that it was made by somebodyt outside the party - are the Tories above any criticism
The fforts you have made to probve the non existent Antisemitism in Labour makes you a total hypocrite - your claims taht the Tory accusations make you da dishonest hypocrite
A few months after these accuasitions were made, the Tories were accused of elexction fraud - they weren't investigated either - not part of the Tory cultural "implant" it would seem
"have either Keith A or myself blamed any crime on a "racial/cultural" group as you put it"
Keith has - you seem to have forgottin his "cultural implant"
This timeless gem from Keith
"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."
Sort of - "I've nothing against Christianity, but Jesus was a Paedo"
You couldn't make it up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:25 PM

"Only thing is Teribus that none of us ostrichocracy brigade can ever say a damn thing that you won't find a way of contradicting" - Steve Shaw

That Shaw is the essence of discussion/debate (Delete as you see fit)

If you cannot present and then support the points you wish to make then don't bother making them - simple. No need for insults, baseless accusations and smears followed by massive deflections into totally unconnected subjects because you haven't the wit or intelligence to argue your corner.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:44 PM

Wit or intelligence you say? Why, I'm noted for both. But, as I've just been telling Keith on another thread. I'm bored. Very very bored. I'm as bored as a professor of Boredom Studies at the Univesity of Bore in Boring-Next-The-Sea in Tediumshire. The cause? Why, you and Keith! Same old same old same old same old....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 07:12 PM

Two shocking typos in there. I look for scapegoats. Bloody iPads. Mind you, I could write a 10000-word treatise on "The Proposed Causes Of My Typos" which would be a damn sight more interesting than any posts from Keith 'n' Bill. And that's despite the fact that the said treatise wouldn't even touch on my sex life. Now that would be something.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 02:14 AM

I suppose the reason you are bored Shaw is that any discussion gets tiresome from the point of view of those who cannot bring anything germane to that discussion.

This intelligence and wit that you seem to think you possess only seems to work for you in groups where everyone is in agreement, or under conditions were those you are addressing cannot answer back. Under such circumstances and in such situations it is very easy to fall for and believe your own propaganda.

Unfortunately, you do not get away with it here on the 'cat. Here you have people who are prepared to confront points made by you. In doing so you present your argument in the shape of stereotypes well passed their sell-by-date and worn out ideological clichés. You and your pals are then confronted by detail and fact that for some reason you never, ever seem able to refute or counter - Why is that? You then resort to lies, smears, baseless accusations that are never substantiated and then finally you then subvert the thread by wittering on about whatever comes into your head (I suppose that is the forum equivalent of sticking a finger in each ear and yelling, "La-la-la" very loudly).

You and your pals over the last four years have all but destroyed this forum - that seems to be the only thing you have an aptitude for - Oddly enough, getting back on topic, Corbyn is exactly the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 02:43 AM

Lister Park was covered in a carpet of crocuses this morning. Looks spectacular. Germane? Look up Lister's Mill and the Labour movement :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:16 AM

Finished with your dishonest claim that accusations of Islamophobia was fukky investigated in any way shape or form by the Tories, Teribus
You do put 'em up to be knocked down, don't you?
Islamophobia is a far greater threat to the well-being of British citizens than antisemitism is, or ever was in recent history.
Britain welcomed Jews fleeing the Nazis, modern day Britain is happy to turn fleeing refugees back into war-zones facilitated by weapons we have sold to terrorist despots.
WE fill our shops with goods manufactured in death-traps by workers working at near slave conditions and wages. and we turn away economic refugees fleeing from the poverty we are helping create.
The West has gone through a long period of dehumanisation during my lifetime, and the main culprit has bot been The Labour Party (New Labour excepted), but the racist and misogynist Tories
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM

Well never mind, Teribus. Just think: the burgeoning spring and the infinite variety of nature on show as the seasons advance mean that we never have to repeat, revisit or rehash the same old tedium and same old lies again and again and again. You say I can't, I say I won't. Had enough, old boy. Say what you like. Unfortunately, Dave, we are not sharing your pleasant weather and colourful outlook this morning. We have heavy drizzle and I can hardly see fifty yards across my garden. But the long-tailed tits are mobbing the feeders and it's going to be one of those days for looking at things nearby. Just going out to chuck a few handfuls of seeds out for the birdies! Jolly! 🙂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:31 AM

Very well said Teribus, and while I have time, did you ever see a more illustrative example of the "liberal elite" in anti democratic action as in the House of Lords yesterday?

The whole charade is simply a cover to deflect and overturn the result of the EU referendum by making the coming negotiations inoperable.
The House of Commons is packed with "jobsworths" who care for little but their own financial future and the Lords amendment brought by a lawyer......for f*** sake!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:40 AM

Do you people not feel a little ashamed of yourselves? If one cannot find anything relevant to say, most adults in that position would move on to another subject which is of interest to them .

I notice that the present tactic, thought up by the witty and intelligent Steve, is intended to "sort them out". It fails miserably and makes those who contribute in this manner look extremely and embarrassingly stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:42 AM

"The House of Commons is packed with "jobsworths""
And the Labour exchanges will be packed with the unemployed who will lose their Jobs because the French have bought up Vauxhalls and have nowhere to go because of Brexit
You people......!!!
Tories, every las one of you
Democracy only works when it is helping screw working people - then we need a Trump!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:52 AM

If one cannot find anything relevant to say, most adults in that position would move on to another subject which is of interest to them .

Which is exactly what I am doing. Unlike those who repeat the same thing over and over (and over and over and over) again. This stopped becoming a discussion round about post number 1.

DtG

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

Well then Shaw I don't think that you are the one that should be bringing up the subject of lies, having been exposed as a proven liar yourself - Pot, kettle, black?

Only trouble is you (Or any of your pals for that matter) can never find or give any examples of lies told by either myself, or anyone else you cast that accusation at.

You must have felt on much safer ground standing in front of a class of school kids who couldn't answer back eh?

One thing that has been sorted out though Shaw - you and your little gang now turn and bolt far faster thanever whenever your "mobbing" attempts are confronted these days. Go ahead chaps huddle together and chatter away inanely on whatever off topic subject you like. As Ake says you just make yourselves look the idiots you undoubtedly are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:03 AM

"Do you people not feel a little ashamed of yourselves? "
Talk to your friend Keith - he has made the most effort to keep this thread alive
It is he who has used this thread to keep up his attack on the left - should suit extremists like yourself right down to the ground
If you have nothing to say here, go away
We'' get enough censorship if your fuehrer Trump ever gets his way
Do you not feel more than a little ashamed of the blanket support you have given him?
Rhetorical question!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

Looks like you are sending the weather up here, Steve. Damn you! Still, it will remain a lot pleasanter than the rank atmosphere here.

Eeeeh, fancy. Ake saying that we look stupid. From a man who believes that Donald Trump and Nigel Farage are the true socialists I would take that as a compliment. If he were to agree with anything I said I would know for certain it was wrong and change my mind immediately :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:19 AM

The subject of this particular thread is: Uk Labour Party discussion II

"If you have nothing to say here, go away" - Jim Carroll

What a great pity it is Jim that you and your pals just don't heed your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:09 AM

It must be very uncomfortable to have one's knickers in a twist all the while.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:11 AM

Dave, have you been "channelling" Jim?

Where on this forum have I ever said President Donal -John, or Mr Farage, were any kind of socialist?

I expect lies and misrepresentations from Jim, but this is surely a new tactic in YOUR armoury.

I admire people of many different views...one doesn't have to always agree, to respect aspects of character.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:13 AM

Or see forward to long term outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:22 AM

Sorry, ake. My apologies. It is indeed more complex than I said. You have not described Trump and Farage as socialists. You describe yourself as a socialist and then go on to say you believe that the terrible twosome are doing a good job and admire them even though they are the the epitome of right wing, anti-socialist politicians. If that is not a sign of someone who does not know his arse from his elbow I don't know what is. Excuse me for being confused.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM

Very well put Teribus, 08 Mar 17 - 02:14 AM, spot on observation and analysis, you've nailed it in one post.

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

Hello Bobad, let's have a look at some of your recent posts shall we.

"and they try to pretend there is no pack ...lolololol"

"your obsession with me says otherwise but you're probably just playing hard to get"

"Hey Shaw, love the self portraits, they capture your essence, if you know what I mean"

"Hypocrisy from a blatant anti-semite? How shocking"

"Come on Jimmy, take defeat like a man"

"Touche Keith"

"Lol... but I am compelled to make it so by some unseen power, must be them dastardly Jews again"

Not what I would think of as erudite and learned.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:17 AM

Sorry to cause you such angst, annoyance, bitterness and frustration, Bill. But, you see, nothing useful is being discussed here apropos of the alleged thread topic. Just you and Keef pushing your agendas. So we may as well diversify. Let's go ride bikes!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM

I have just ordered a bike shelter from Amazon. Free up some space in the shed and keep the bikes dry. My bike is a bit of a dinosaur, like me I suppose. May get a new hybrid this year but that presupposes I will be fit enough to ride it!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Hybrids are the way to go unless you want to do a Wiggins. And no bloody Lycra!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:15 AM

Aaaarrrghghgh !!!

Dave in Lycra ..................not something I want to consider ever again !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:19 AM

How about cling film?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:23 AM

Hey, he's talking about you, jackals:

I'm calling out the loons who make Israel bashing the mother of all virtues

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:40 AM

WTF are you on about poobad?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM

Stick to the Lycra ............................ please!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM

I have always said that if we seek abetter and fairer system in the future, we must do so by including all shades of political opinion, division will make the task impossible.

President Trump and Mr Farage are both anti the current establishment, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had.

The Labour Party are "reformers" as establishment as they come, I have more faith in Mrs May's Conservatives to keep up with what is actually happening in the Western hemisphere.

I am and always will be a socialist but have enough intelligence to understand that socialism will not come about till the time is right, in fact all the old labels are redundant as the new order becomes clear. As I have said before socialism will not be a "pleasant choice", it will be an absolute necessity.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM

Adolph Hitler was also purported to be anti-establishment but as a socialist who supports nationalism I suppose you also admire him. Trump and Farage are as establishment as they come. They are selling you the same lie that political con men have been selling for millennia and sadly you are still buying it. They have your interest at heart as much as Genghis Khan did.

Socialist my arse.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 09:49 AM

The Gnome's new bike:

Gnome goes cycling

I thought the mental picture of the Gnome toddling about the hills and dales with a knapsack on his back was funny enough - but him on a bike!!! Priceless, just priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 09:59 AM

See, Teribus, you can have fun! You should try it more often :-) Here is an odd coincidence for you though. One of my bikes is a Ridgeback Attache! Good bikes. Mine needs some fettling but once done it should be perfectly rideable again. Thanks for reminding me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:00 AM

It needs a holder for a fishing rod, Gnomes invariably have fishing rods.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:03 AM

Actually teri it's very considerate of you to include stabilisers, he might need those when cycling home from the pub !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:10 AM

Whose knickers are in a twist Raggy? Certainly not mine.

Do you ever review your own posts Raggy? You post very frequently yet never seem to say anything, even when you try to stay on topic, when what you say is ill-informed and incorrect.

I take it that you do realise that that place in that college in Oxford was a waste don't you - you robbed some perfect stranger of a chance in a lifetime as I am sure they would have put that education to far better use than you seem to have done judging by your input here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:10 AM

It's not always a fishing rod, Raggy :-D

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:30 AM

If I considered the c**p that goes on here to be of any importance I may have maded a greater effort, but seeing as it is so facile, an has such a low base level I really can't be arsed. Just like winding people up I suppose when I've got a little time to waste.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

" Just like winding people up I suppose when I've got a little time to waste." - Raggy

Precisely, but you do seem to have an awful lot of time to waste. On the "winding people up" Raggy, how come you're so poor at it? I mean for someone educated at Oxford?

Thanks the picture of your bike Gnome, my little sister had one vaguely similar to that in the late 60s.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 12:21 PM

I refer you to my post regarding twisted knickers, seems like they're still in a knot.

Love you, kissy, kissy

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

Jim,
"was investigated and found to be groundless."
Utter crap - there is no evidence that it was ever discussed
...
The fforts you have made to probve the non existent Antisemitism in Labour makes you a total hypocrite

Bollocks Jim!
Guardian yesterday,
"Labour members may be expelled over claims of antisemitism and bullying
Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Paul Davis face top disciplinary body after being suspended from party"

"Momentum's former vice-chair Jackie Walker has been formally referred to Labour's highest disciplinary body for possible expulsion over comments she made about Holocaust Memorial Day.
Labour's national executive committee (NEC) also referred several other members who had been suspended from the party over the summer. Among those were: Paul Davis, the vice-chair of the local party in Wallasey, who was referred over allegations of bullying and intimidation during the leadership challenge by local MP Angela Eagle; and Marc Wadsworth, a party activist who, at the launch of a report into Labour and antisemitism, challenged Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth that she was working "hand in hand" with the media."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:09 PM

Damn! I knew I must have been ripped off paying £400 for it. I should have just nicked one like, presumably, your sister did.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:18 PM

"What a great pity it is Jim that you and your pals just don't heed your own advice."
I am quite happy to hang around to see yo two squirmingly humiliate yourself
"President Trump and Mr Farage are both anti the current establishment, "
They most certainly are not
The establisment is based on support for the haves at the expense of the lesser well of
It is utter nonsense that this is what these pair stand for
The are using the discontent of ordinary people and challenging it away from those who are to blame for the state of Britain today - divide and rule is a classic tactic of the stablishment
While we are blaming the less fortunate - in this case, immigrants and refugees, Trump and his billionaire friends are laughing all the way to the bank
Utter madness to suggest that either of these fascists are in any way beneficial to Britain or America.
The real beneficiaries are scum like LePen and Wilders, who are likely to push the world even nearer another holocaust, if they have their way
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 02:51 PM

Marc Wadsworth, a party activist who, at the launch of a report into Labour and antisemitism, challenged Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth that she was working "hand in hand" with the media."

Well, Keith, you could have helped the Guardian out a little by adding that Marc Wadsworth has been a prominent Labour campaigner for equal rights and against all forms of discrimination for decades, including fighting antisemitism, that he didn't know that Smeeth was a Jew and that Smeeth put on a deliberate act of histrionics, including fake tears, at the launch. Nothing like the "truth," the part-truth and nothing but the part-truth for misprepresenting, eh, Keith? And before you start bleating that it was the Guardian wot done it, do what you should have done and give us the link so that we can read it for ourselves. Not that you can't be trusted, of course...😂

Sorry to get serious again, folks, but there are things that really shouldn't be let pass. Now back to bikes!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:00 PM

At one time I had 2 V reg Hondas. One was a 1.5is (No nothing to do with ISIS before anyone starts) vtec Civic with a V at the beginning and the other was a 500CX custom with a V at the end. I hadn't planned it that way - Honest! I did the route as sung in Mr Fox's 'The Gypsy' on the bike and enjoyed it immensely.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:22 PM

Me and a mate bought a Honda 50 for £4 in 1969, £2 each. We used to go to school on it.

The only hiccup really is that we were only 14 at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM

Honda 50s had a very strange 'undocumented feature'. If you advanced the timing as far as it would go it pushed the top speed up to about 60. Ran like a crock of shit at the low end but the top speed was improved greatly. Just the sort of trivia that should be in a folk music forum :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:50 PM

According to Christy Moore his Honda 50 would do a 150 on a windy day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:11 PM

I had a Honda 50 moped in the early 70s. Used to commute on it between Dudley, Tipton and Wolverhampton when I was at teacher training college. Didn't need a crash helmet in those days so I zoomed along on the thing, hair flowing behind, breeze in beard, looking like Jesus. No tax, no insurance, optional brakes. Jaysus, I loved it, except when the soddin' exhaust valve burned, which was approximately once a month. Happy days!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM

Pedant alert. The Honda 50 was not a moped.

Strictly speaking, mopeds are driven by both an engine and by bicycle pedals, but in common usage and in many jurisdictions the term moped is used for similar vehicles including a scooter, though this is quite erroneous

Just thought you would like to be corrected on such an important point of trivia :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:42 AM

Wrong thread Dave, Akenaton posted on another thread that the Honda 50 was a Moped.

In various guises over 87 million have been produced since 1958.

87 MILLION !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:09 AM

"Bollocks Jim!"
No Keith
You have alleged a "serious problem" throughout this thread and come up with three members out of a Party of over half a million "may be expelled"
Oh calamity!!!
Nobody has ever argued that there are no antisemites in Labour - three maybes don't make a "serious problem" by anybody's calculations.
Let's see what they "may be" expelled for and see how serious their antisemitism is, but you have a massive mountain to climb before you come up with a "serious problem
I'm no sure exactly how accusing somebody of "working hand in hand with the media" can be construed as either antisemitism or bullying (politicians do it all the time), but let's see, shall we.
We know that bullying has been a issue with the Tory Party, even to the poing od DRIVING SOMEBODY TO KILLING HIMSELF
No Outrage and accusation from you there.
We know that RACISM HAS BEEN AN ISSUE in the Tory Party for some time now - no enquiry - no howls of protest from you
We know that ZAC GOLDSMITH ran an Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khhan during the London Mayoral Electyion
No protest from you, no enquiry by the Tories.
We know that the Tories were accused of islamophobia a year ago and that those accusations are

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:17 AM

Whoops - wrong button!
We know that the Tories were accused of islamophobia a year ago and that those accusations are ONGOING
Nothing from you - nothing from the Toriss
And you say you are not badmouthing Labour!!!
My arse, you're not.
If your concern for the vicims of racism and bigotry, you wouls speak out on behalf of all of them -
Instead, you are an extreme bigot using three "may be" incidents to denigrate a party set up and dedicated to opposing racism and bigotry.
Both dishonest and extremely hypocritical
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM

Steve,
what you should have done and give us the link so that we can read it for ourselves.

I thought you took the Guardian.
I stated it was from, "Guardian yesterday,"

That should be enough for anyone, or you could just google a bit of the text.

As you clearly need to be spoon fed, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/labour-members-may-be-expelled-over-claims-of-antisemitism-and-bullying

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:39 AM

Jim,

Nobody has ever argued that there are no antisemites in Labour - three maybes don't make a "serious problem" by anybody's calculations.

It clearly does Jim because numerous Labour people including the NEC and leadership all agree that it is a serious problem, and as we have just read in the Guardian it is not finished yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:43 AM

"That should be enough for anyone, or you could just google a bit of the text."
Both you and Teribus are regular mis - and out of context quoters - the two of you have not long given us an example of your dishonesty
You have just accused me of not linking to your on thousand year old smearing of the Muslim Culture.
You seem to demand of others what you are not prepared to offer yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

Jim, your "ongoing" link does not link to anything relevant to your claims.


Both you and Teribus are regular mis - and out of context quoters - the two of you have not long given us an example of your dishonesty

If that is true, quote the "dishonesty."

You have just accused me of not linking to your on thousand year old smearing of the Muslim Culture.

Another of your nasty, smearing lies.
I have never, ever said anything critical of any religion, unlike every member of your little gang.

Or will you produce a quote of me doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:24 AM

So, Keith, you never have to give links to the Guardian for the forum because Steve takes the Guardian. My, I AM flattered! 😂

Woke up to dense fog this morning but, contrary to the forecast last night, the sun's burned it off in the last twenty minutes. Drove to Truro and back yesterday, over a hundred miles, in thick fog and drizzle. It boggles the eyes. Glorious mud abounds but it's warm. Spring!

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

Hey Dave, my machine was called a Honda 50 and it had pedals. Not that anyone other then Hercules unchained could have pedalled it anywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:45 AM

Yay - found one!

Still wrong though. Most NORMAL people would call this pedal free version a Honda 50. You lose...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:07 AM

So, Keith, you never have to give links to the Guardian for the forum because Steve takes the Guardian. My, I AM flattered!

I stated it was from "yesterday's Guardian" and quoted the text.
That is why I thought a link unnecessary, but now you have it anyway.

I note that you still deny, or are unable to recognise the anti-Semitism reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:15 AM

Bless my soul, never seen one of those before.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:15 AM

"If that is true, quote the "dishonesty.""
You didn't link your Labour quote which missed the point of the article
Teribus does it regularly - his unlinked quote on Labour's "support" for nuclear weapons was totally contradicted by what the article actually said
You are both invererate liars - the major examples of yours are in denying what you have said and what you believe. said
Your quoting of the marriage of Mohammed a thousand years ago in an argument about Muslim criminals was a deliberate attempt to link those crimes with the Muslim religion   
You are a racist sicko in the extreme
So three possibes in a party of half a million make a serious problem - never mind what other people say
How can that be vaguely possible
Are they accusing Jews of blood sacrifice?
You are a feckin' eejit
Nobody has ever at any time said there is a serious problem, apart from those with a political axe to grind
What they said that any accusation has to be treated seriously - it has, and so far, no serious problem haes been uncovered and until that so-called antisemitism is described and enumerated, it never will be.
It is all in your tiny right-wing skull
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM

"I note that you still deny, or are unable to recognise the anti-Semitism reported."

Oh, you "note," do you? Well, it would take me all day to regale you with the things I've "noted" about you. I'm bored over/with/about/of you, Keith. Yawnyawnyawnyawnyawn. Please force me to lose as quickly as possible.

I reckon mine was called a Honda 50PC or PC50, Dave. Are you making a baseless, spittle-flecked assertion that it wasn't a moped, Dave? Typical liberal-elitist, leftie, blame-it-all-on-Maggie-Thatcher UKIP lie, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:54 AM

Did you wear sandals and cheesecloth when you rode it.

The public DEMAND an answer !!! Feckle, spit rant, feckle, spit, rant !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:55 AM

Bet you used to pedal it in your sandals as well. And naming it PC is typical of your bearded, guardian reading ilk as well. Bet it was not PC before you "liberals" came along.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:58 AM

Or should that be freckled spit rant?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM

I note that you still deny, or are unable to recognise the anti-Semitism reported.

Of course they have to deny it Keith otherwise they would be admitting to their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM

I SAT on the cheesecloth to soak up the bumsweat on warm days. Those plasticated saddles were deadly when moist. Brake hard and you could slip forward a foot and do yourself a nasty. Mind you, my brakes were busted so it couldn't happen to me. I regarded having no brakes as an essential safety feature.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

Hello, boobs!

Is it OK if I call you "boobs?" After all, there did used to be a pair of you!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:28 AM

I'm sure boobs (good name that) thinks there's logic in his post but I'm not certain I can fathom it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:35 AM

Humph. Knew I'd be shat on for revealing that it was a PC moped. Damn!

My brother had one as well. Foolishly, he attempted to ride it home from Worcester, where he was at college, back to Radcliffe. I had to borrow me dad's car to go and rescue him from Tarporley in Cheshire. We couldn't get the bike into the Mk 1 Escort. Can't remember what happened to it now. It's probably still hidden in a hedge in Cheshire. If anyone finds one in that vicinity, we want it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:38 AM

"I'm sure boobs thinks..."


❓

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:43 AM

I'm not certain I can fathom it.

There is not much you can fathom from what we see in your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 07:58 AM

It's just that I can't think down to your level.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:14 AM

It's just that I can't think

QED!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:17 AM

It's

Do I now win the prize for silliest quote taken out of context from the original?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:20 AM

I

Think that wins it .......... you lose !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM

Hammond's budget yesterday was a bit boring apart from the two really good digs he got in at Corbyn & Labour:

1: 'They don't call it the last Labour Government for nothing!'

2: That Corbyn and Labour are in such a deep hole that even Stephen Hawking has given up on them.

No need to thank me Gnome just "adding sweetness and light"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM

Damn you Kei Raggy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:28 AM

Well done, Teribus. You are getting into the swing of things at long last. Never let it be said that you can't teach and old sea dog new tricks.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:36 AM

I wonder ........... should we club together and buy him a bike?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 08:51 AM

I think it may be more useful getting on my bike and buying a club...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 09:00 AM

"Hammond's budget yesterday was a bit boring"
Not to the Lewis's employees who have had their bonuses cut to make up for the Brexit uncertainty, or the rise in takes for the self-employed despite promises on not intending to do so
Brexit is proving a real fuck-up in every sense and it is the less well off who is taking the flak
How "boring" can you get

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/philip-hammonds-spring-budget-what-he-said-and-what-he-really-meant-a7618621.html
Jim Carroll

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

Teribus can have my brother's old moped if he can find it. There are an awful lot of hedgerows in Cheshire, mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 09:18 AM

The Insitute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has blown the Tories' cover. I'm rubbish at doing links but have a google at this: 'IFS: Growth in UK living standards worst in 60 years" Hands up all those who think Brexit will help! And there was a Tory on the wireless at dinner time STILL blaming the last Labour government! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:21 AM

👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:24 AM

I think Teribus wants to give us a hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 10:59 AM

Jim,,
Your quoting of the marriage of Mohammed a thousand years ago in an argument about Muslim criminals was a deliberate attempt to link those crimes with the Muslim religion  

No it was not. You made it look like that by editing out everything I said before and after.

I said, "It is nothing to do with Islam. " and "Child marriage was accepted here until recently."

You can only make a case by lying and by careful editing of what I really said.

You didn't link your Labour quote which missed the point of the article

??
What did I not link to that I should please?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM

My Honda 50 was registration No ELG81B then moved on to bigger and faster machines.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:21 AM

"My Honda"
Do you know the story of the Japanese man who told his doctor that he suffered from flatulence.
The doctor replied that this may be embarrassing but it was not a major problem - many people do.
"Ah - this is different" -
He bent over and farted, and out came a loud "Honda"
The doctor examined him closely and finally said, "You have an abscess".
"What difference does that make", the man asked?
"Well", replied the doctor, "in Britain, we have an old saying - abscess makes the fart go Honda"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 11:43 AM

This is your what you were directly responding to Keith
Lox
"They do not represent Islamic attitudes to women."
"So, why not Irish gangs?
Chinese?
The muslim communty does not encourage its girls to have relationships.
Marriages are usually arranged, and usually with partners in Pakistan.
Their unmarried young men must abstain or find sex outside their own community, but not have lasting relationships.
Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."
You were replying to a point about the sexual abuse of children and you chose to link it to Muslim culture and threw in a touch of religion "peace be upon you" for good measure

"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Your argument, a massively contradictory as it was, was aimed totally at Muslim culture – then you specified a thousand year old marriage to back up your claims against a 21st century community
The spiteful 'mock-Muslim' manner in which you framed your accusation "(peace and blessings be upon him) " only underlined your contempt for Muslims
End of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 12:37 PM

Gotta tell me mum that one, Jim.

My moped's reg was NNF41H. Wasn't overly keen on the NF bit of that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 01:25 PM

The only full registration I can remember was my first. Lambretta GT200 - BBA46B. When I first set of on it I rode it into a wall! Low speed I am glad to say. Never fell off it again after that :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:00 PM

"Gotta tell me mum that one, Jim."
She told me it Steve!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM

I'm not surprised, Jim. I've always had you down as her type, though she could give you a year or two!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

Jim,
Whenever I referred to the Prophet I added "peace and blessings be upon him" out of respect for their faith.

Unlike you I never disrespect any faith or its followers.

Throughout that thread I stated that religion played no part in that crime.
You just highlighted in red me saying, "but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Culture not religion!

I had no knowledge of it but I quoted several prominent left wing people who did and who had all been quoted in all the media attributing the offending to that culture.
No alternative theory had been put forward.
As I said at the time, that was the only reason I believed it. Why didn't you Jim?
Dave did, and Steve never challenged it at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:50 AM

Dave did

I accepted that there was an over-representation. I questioned the reasons for that. Please try to get these things right, Keith, and do not try to give the impression that I agree with your cultural implant theory.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 05:55 AM

"Whenever I referred to the Prophet I added "peace and blessings be upon him" out of respect for their faith."
You liar Keith
You set out in the previous sentence to show that Islam = pedophilia, which is what you spent the entire thread in doing - go and look
If you didn't mean it as a smear - why put up a marriage that took place a thousand years ago?
It had no reason to be in an argument about Muslim criminals guilty of sexual crimes other than to back up your disgusting claims of a "cultural implant that has to be resisted in order to stop Muslims raping under-age girls"
We really have been here before Keith
You were foremost in those quoting the Quran, trying to prove in inbuilt evil of the religion - I responded with quotes from 'The Evil Bible' showing the stupidity of taking these fairy stories literally (I seem to remember you objected strongly to the fact that Bible quotations used the term "Israel" traditionally - you appeared to think I was taking a pop at your favourite terrorist state.
Once again, yo are lying - you have never once quoted anybody supporting your "cultural implant" theory - not ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 06:00 AM

I very likely didn't challenge it because I was as bored with your hectoring then as I am with your hectoring now. This forum is voluntary. Don't assume that silence means agreement with you. That's another one of your little ploys. Well some of us are not quite as thick and unobservant as you seem to think. And it's another reason why I'd rather talk about flowers and things. Indeed, it's a lovely spring day this end. Mrs Steve and I may or may not get the MX5 soft top down and head off to RHS Rosemoor this affy. I will, if course, keep you posted!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

Dave, you posted this ,
The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

Ahmed and Straw were two of those I quoted as claiming a cultural explanation.

Steve,

I very likely didn't challenge it because I was as bored with your hectoring then as I am with your hectoring now.

No Steve. You were posting away quite happily but never challenged the over-representation or the cultural explanation for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:43 AM

Jim,
"Whenever I referred to the Prophet I added "peace and blessings be upon him" out of respect for their faith."
You liar Keith

I can prove it Jim.
I posted this before the post you refer to.

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 01:21 PM
Correct greg, but the difference is in how non believers are tolerated.
It is much more prevalent among Muslims to believe they have a duty to punish a non believer who by stating his belief blasphemes against Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon Him), or a Muslim who converts, or just a non believer.

If you didn't mean it as a smear - why put up a marriage that took place a thousand years ago?

I put it up to pre-empt anyone else doing it.
There were Islamophobes posting who might well have muddied the waters with that false argument.

That is also why I had to keep restating my view that religion was not an issue in the offending.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 07:44 AM

The primulas in my garden have been flowering all winter and last November the Rhododendrons were flowering on the Connemara !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:16 AM

Jim another example from 2006!!

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 May 06 - 04:16 AM

Just 40 days in the wilderness Dianavan, and that hundreds of years before Mohammed, peace be upon him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM

"I put it up to pre-empt anyone else doing it."
You are a lying prick Keith
Who,    of those debating, would
You were on your own and most of those opposing you were referring to you as a racist
our references to scriptures that are largely disregarded by British Muslims only underlines you racism
And more lies
Post or link one single statement by either Ahmed or Straw that suggested that All Male Pakistani's were "culturally implanted" to rape children and the only reason they didn't was that they resisted the implant
That is exactly what you said - nothing made up by me - that is what you told don yo believed "Don - I now do believe....."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:43 AM

Thank you Keith. Saved me looking anything up. You say I posted

The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

This perfectly underlines what I just said. While there appears to be an over-rperesentation we will always disagree about the reasons. You go for the cultural implant one while I continue to quest for all possible reasons.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM

Knock it off, Keith. I'll tell you if and when I agree with you. My silence means bugger all. As indeed do you prattling on interminably about this and trying to goad people all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM

Dave, you had already accepted the over-representation based on the statistics. Nothing to do with Straw or Ahmed.

In that post you were referring to the explanation, and said that Lord Ahmed Jack Straw were credible on that.
They gave a cultural explanation.

Jim, culture is implanted and I quoted them and others saying that the explanation was cultural.
Why would I not believe them, as Dave clearly did?
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM

Steve,
As indeed do you prattling on interminably about this

I do not.
I just defend myself from false accusations.
I will stop rebutting the accusations the very instant Jim stops making them.

It is always prattling Jim who dredges this up, and prattling Jim who then spreads it to concurrent threads.
This time you, Dave and Rag chose to join in so again do not blame me for any of this.

Why don't you have a quiet word with your friend?
Ask him to stop "prattling on interminably about this."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:18 AM

In that post you were referring to the explanation, and said that Lord Ahmed Jack Straw were credible on that.
They gave a cultural explanation.

Oh, FFS, here we go again. Telling me what I mean - How is that you know what people mean better than they do themselves? Yes, it is a credible explanation AMONGST MANY OTHERS. My whole point was that while it may be credible, it is not necessarily the right one. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:49 AM

Let me guess. Keith saw this bastard-child thread of his dropping off the bottom. Eighteen hours without a post! He couldn't let that happen. So here we are again, another pointless resurrection enabling Keith to prattle on interminably for a little while longer. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:27 AM

Good point, Steve :-) I suspect that pattern of posting is pretty consistent too. I shall be kind though and put it down to Keith's absences due to other commitments.

I know your bearded, Guardian reading sandaled ways, Shaw...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 06:34 AM

Jim, culture is implanted and I quoted them and others saying that the explanation was cultural.
Nobody has ever said such a disgusting thing - "implanted to rape children"
You lide and you you continue to lie - not only have you never produced a quote, you refuse to produce one now when it is well within your capabilities to do so
You visited within the last few days - one quick cut-'- paste would have settled it - nothing!!!
You are not only dishonest but you are stupidly so in continuing with your lies despite having proved yourself wrong over and over again
Have you no respect for yourself??
As for "I said it before anyone else did - utterly and completely mindless beyond imagination
You have attacked Muslims both over their ethnicity and because of their religion - and you have denied doing it while you are continuing to do it.
I've got far more important things to do than converse with someone who appears to wish to humiliate himself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:32 AM

Oh, FFS, here we go again. Telling me what I mean

No. Telling you what you said.
You may wish now that you had not, but your meaning there was clear.

Let us examine the whole post.

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM
I think the point is that British Pakistanis, and I only use the term to be consistent with the thread, are over-represented in these cases. I have no doubt as to the veracity of Keiths figures. Lox has even agreed that it is an over-representation.

There you have accepted the over representation based on the figures.

You then quote someone else's post,
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

Having dealt with that you move on to the "motive" behind the over representation,

"The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

Ahmed and Straw proposed a cultural explanation, and as you said not a "racial motive."
You clearly endorse their view.

Your final sentence, which again makes clear that you are discussion the explanation for the over representation, and not just the over representation itself,

I did, incidentaly, put up what I felt were reasonable reasons for such an over-representation earlier but only Keith chose to respond. And then to only agree that he, like myself, did not have an answer!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:38 AM

Steve,
So here we are again, another pointless resurrection enabling Keith to prattle on interminably for a little while longer.

No Steve.
It is always Jim who dredges up this shit, and spreads it across the threads.
He has been doing it for SIX YEARS!
I always try to dissuade him.

I never prattle on about the odious subject, but I do rebut prattling Jim's false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 09:46 AM

Jim,
You have attacked Muslims both over their ethnicity and because of their religion - and you have denied doing it while you are continuing to do it.

Another disgusting Jim lie.
Will you produce a quote?
Of course not, because it is just another disgusting Jim lie.

In the thread are the original quotes of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Safiq and Alibhai Brown all saying it is cultural.
There have been other quotes since.

I have repeated them often enough. Just search the thread for those names if you want to read them again.

They say the child rapes in question were down to culture, and culture is implanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Wonder what birds, plants, mopeds, recipes or supermarket special deals we'll hear about now?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:54 AM

Try as you may to fit my words into your ideology, Keith, I know what was meant, Steve knows what was meant and lots of other people know what was meant. Only your agenda driven imagination is saying anything else. If you feel that my use of the language is shit as well as my morals you only have to say so. :-)

I have always said that the figures show an over representation. I have also always said that there are many plausible reasons for this and I do not know what the right one is. Unlike you, who have always insisted that it must be culture based because that is what some politicians told you.

You need to lighten up Teribus. The difference when you were trying to be witty was amazing. Sad that you failed but keep practicing and you may come across as human eventually:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 11:56 AM

You know what Teribus, it really doesn't matter that they natter on about their inanities, it has about as much value as their parroting of the tired old canon of a long failed ideology and besides someone may benefit from a supermarket deal they were unaware of.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM

it really doesn't matter that they natter on about their inanities

Absolutely spot on for a change poobad. Trouble is I suspect you were aiming it in the wrong direction. Food, flowers and the beauty of the naturual world are what matter. Politics are indeed inane.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:24 PM

Oh - BTW, Steve, forgot to tell you I am thinking of ordering a new T-Shirt

I wish I was a unicorn.

Thought you would appreciate it :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

Still 25% off six bottles at M&S. Got six bottles of the Negroamaro last Wednesday, eight quid each less 25% and on top of that I had a five quid off voucher for spending over £35. So six cracking good bottles of red for a tad over a fiver apiece. It will wash down the orecchiette con cime di rape I'm making tonight. Not all six at once of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:31 PM

£9.99 though, Dave? Will it wash OK? Keep me posted! I go for Hawaiian shirts all the time these days. They suit my sunny personality. Can't wait for the new season's offerings at Asda George. Nowt over twelve quid though. Bought a good few at Pilsworth Asda last spring.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 12:36 PM

I love Hawaiian shirts! Had a great collection, added to on a visit to the States some years back but, alas, they have all gone bar 2. Must try to build it up again. They were easy to come by when skateboarding gear was popular. Not sure how the two fitted together, but they did.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 01:36 PM

Dave,
Try as you may to fit my words into your ideology, Keith, I know what was meant,

I did not have to fit your words to anything.
Whatever you now claim you meant, the actual meaning was quite explicit in your post as I have just demonstrated.

If you meant something different you should have said something different.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 02:09 PM

I just wonder what is the purpose of these childish diversions, is it an attempt to get the BS section closed now that at last serious subjects are being discussed at length?

Is it simply spite that the gang's intellectual inadequacies are being exposed and they just can't take a beating like adults?

Is it the fact that their mythical ideology has been rumbled all over the developed West and the years they invested in promoting the idiocy of "liberalism" have turned out to be lives wasted?

Is it just that they have nowhere left to go and have decided to destroy debate as one final spiteful performance?

Any one of the above would be sad, but all combined would mean complete mental desolation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:15 PM

Our diversions are childlike, not childish. We approach the glories of the natural world with wide-eyed wonder, God-free. The very epitome of what it is to be childlike. And we indulge in these diversions in the hope that they will severely piss people like you off, so that you may end up posting less, thus enhancing the possibility that the forum below the line will be a more pleasant and populous place that will live forever. If you do end up posting less, or, indeed, buggering off entirely, that will be your choice, no attack on free speech intended, etc. We live in hope. And there's nothing you can do to stop us. Free speech, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:18 PM

"I did not have to fit your words to anything."

Ahah, Keith, but can you fit yourself into Dave's Hawaiian shirts? Now there's a challenge!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM

So it's the last example then?   I don't engage with you Steve you appear to aim your spite at Mr T, Keith, Bobad and Iains so what you want is a discussion forum where everyone is of the same opinion on matters social and political, "thus enhancing the possibility that the forum below the line will be a more pleasant and populous place that will live forever."

Say goodnight Stevieboy!! and dream on!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:06 PM

I just wonder what is the purpose of these childish diversions, is it an attempt to get the BS section closed now that at last serious subjects are being discussed at length?

I have said it before, but it is well worth repeating.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Serious subjects being discussed at last? Where? When?

Oh , and BTW

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:08 PM

BTW Stevieboy, YOU or anyone like you will never drive me away.

I view your desperate antics with mild amusement and it is particularly satisfying to see your disgusting attacks on Keith being smacked down by people who are many levels above you in every department.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:12 PM

"but can you fit yourself into Dave's Hawaiian shirts? Now there's a challenge!" - Steve Shaw

Judging by the girth of the little F**ker get two of them and they'd serve as a Bell Tent. Where's the effin' challenge in that???

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:36 PM

Bellend? 🤣

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:42 PM

My it's gone quiet Teribus, I imagine that I can hear the small birds singing in the trees.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 04:58 PM

No-one wants to martyr you, little Scotsperson. Why, we'd all LOVE you to stay and make the rest of us feel so superior! Dunno about the mods, though. I think you'd be well advised to steer clear of ignorant assertions about the American political scene. You know what I mean, eulogies about Donal-Jerk the scrotus, etc. They shout at you if you do that, rightly so. Still, free speech an' all that. Och, magillycuddy reeks! I'm all ocht tae muckty! It's bin a broad bracht moonlacht nacht the nacht! Who wud nae facht fae Charlie! Scots what hae wi' Wallace bled!   Triple Ardbeg for me please, neat, room temp if ye don't mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:01 PM

Jesus, I think I may have just had the first ever sensible exchange with akenaton that any of us have ever had! D'you think he's going to spoil it any minute now?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:13 PM

I know a safe place for you and your raggle taggle band Stevieboy, the "Alternative Facts" thread, you can sit there with Gilly Greg and Don, cursing Donal John and the electoral process to your hearts content. No one will hear you or disagree with you, you will be in "Bigot heaven"    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 05:32 PM

You're just jealous because we deservedly thrashed Scotland. Och the bleedin' noo.

"I have a wee touch of heartburn, Doctor Cameron!"

"Aye, Janet, get your tit oot o' ma porridge..."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM

Bell tent, Teribus? As ever, your imagination let's you down. Not a bad attempt but clichéd. 2/10 for effort.

To be honest, Steve,it was an unfair challenge. He could never measure up to anything of mine :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

Trouble with Hawaiian shirts is (a) I don't want to spend a fortune on 'em, (b) the internet is awash with suspiciously cheap ones. Where to buy?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM

The two I have left are really good quality ones. One is made by Fat Face. I would not usually pay their prices but I think this was from a charity shop! The other I got in America. Make is Columbia who I usually associate with hiking/outdoor gear. Skipton market had some good ones at one time but not for the last couple of years. Charity shops are sometimes a good source and you are also helping the environment by recycling. Should appeal to sandal reading hippies...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

I can't read sandals, Dave, but I can wear the Guardian. 🤣

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 08:31 AM

Timeline: Labour's anti-Semitism crisis

February 16 2016

Oxford University Labour Club co-chair resigns after claiming that its members have "some kind of problem with Jews" and sympathise with terrorist groups like Hamas.

March 6

Two former shadow Cabinet ministers, Michael Dugher MP and Rachel Reeves MP, accuse Jeremy Corbyn of trying to "bury" the Party's problem with anti-Semitism after refusing to publish an investigation into harassment of Jewish students at Oxford University.

March 15

Vicki Kirby, the vice chair of the Labour's Woking branch is suspended after tweeting that Jews have "big noses" and "slaughter the oppressed". MPs attacked the Party leadership after they initially refused to suspend her.

March 16

Jeremy Newmark, national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, says Jeremy Corbyn is "impotent" in his failure to tackle a resurgence of anti-Semitic views

March 20

Labour peer Lord Levy threatens to leave his party unless Jeremy Corbyn publicly rejects antisemitic comments made by party members.

March 25

Labour Chancellor John McDonnell says he wants to take a "harder line" against anti-Semitism, adding that anyone making anti-Semitic remarks should be thrown out of the party

April 2

President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews warns that Jeremy Corbyn is "failing to lead" Labour away from a damaging trend of anti-Semitism

April 10

Labour councillor Aysegul Gurbuz is suspended over a series of anti-Semitic tweets in which she praised Hitler as the "greatest man in history" and said she hoped Iran would use a "nuclear weapon" to "wipe Israel off the map".

April 27

Labour MP Naz Shah is suspended after backing calls for Israel to "relocate" to America. She had resigned as an aide to the Party's shadow chancellor the previous day, but Jeremy Corbyn was criticised by MPs for initially declining to suspend her from the party whip.

April 28

Ken Livingstone becomes embroiled in the row. In a BBC interview he defends Naz Shah, saying, "I've never heard anybody say anything anti-Semitic, but there's been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as anti-Semitic."

The resulting outcry leads to his suspension from the Labour party.

May 4

Britain's Chief Rabbi enters the row for the first time to call on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to take "decisive action". Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis criticised the "poisonous invective" and "politics of distortion" from party members such as Ken Livingstone, and in an article for the Telegraph warns that "there must be no place for anti-Semitism in our politics".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:03 AM

I think all these points have been discussed at length already, do you have a NEW point to raise ...............

................... no? thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 11:57 AM

*Yawn*

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 12:20 PM

Bobad, maybe you can look at something more current, and somewhere there is much more of problem, such as Les Républicains.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 02:48 PM

David, in case you didn't notice the topic of this thread is UK Labour Party Discussion. If you would like to discuss anti-Semitism in the French elections I suggest you start a thread on that. Anti-Semitism and hate crimes directed against Jews are a growing problem in the world, in fact Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today. In the UK alone hate crimes against Jewish people are at record levels having risen by more than a third from previous years. Thank you for your interest and for shining a light on the situation in France where Jews are fleeing in record numbers in fear for their safety.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM

Bobad,

You state that Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups in the world today.

You may be correct in this assertion but you offer no evidence.

It could be that people of the Jewish faith are more inclined to raise issues of hate crime, it could be that people of other faiths are less inclined to raise the matter.

Unless you can offer PROOF of that hate crime, your assertion does not carry any credence.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 03:51 PM

"...in fact Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today."

Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 04:16 PM

Yes that assertion by bobad does stretch credulity, there is far, far too much religiously motivated hate crime in the world, against people of a variety of religions, but I would have thought that such crimes in South Asia rather outweighed those in the Middle East, if only because of the very large populations there.

But as far as anti-semitism goes, the parallel between the UK and France is of course that anti-semitism, like islamphobia, is largely the preserve of the political right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 05:39 PM

You may be correct in this assertion but you offer no evidence.

We have been down this road before and the statistics were provided, they are easily obtainable if anyone is interested in doing so.

As far as the far right being the preserve of anti-Semitism, that was once the case but the far left is today just as, if not more, anti-Semitic than the far right. Plenty evidence available - remember, Google is your friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 06:57 PM

So, boobs, you haven't got any evidence then. Just weasel words. We get it! 😂😂😂

Gorgeous sunny but windy afternoon this end. Walked over the downs past the Bude sea pool. The sea's different every day, and we've seen it almost every day for thirty years. Wizard!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:23 PM

1: Raggytash - 12 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM

"Unless you can offer PROOF of that hate crime, your assertion does not carry any credence."

2: Steve Shaw - 12 Mar 17 - 03:51 PM

"...in fact Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." - bobad

"Prove it."

Raggy, Shaw, if you do not believe the statement then produce figures that counter what has been said. You have come out with the same in the past when I had stated something similar with regard to hate crimes in the USA. I gave you the source - FBI statistics - For some obscure reason, or other, these were still not good enough for you.

I can easily believe what bobad is saying is the truth considering how the "liberal left" has embraced the cause of Yasser Arafat's invention - The "Palestinians".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:27 PM

Same goes for David Carter (UK) if you dispute what has been said then come up with figures that support your point of view and take on things. As bobad says the figures are readily available if you want to look for them. Just making a point blank statement that you don't believe him does not have any credence at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:47 PM

We don't do belief, Teribus. We prefer evidence. Until that arrives, we suspect that boobs is making baseless assertions. I'm sure you'd agree that, if he makes the charge, it's down to him to produce the evidence. If I tell you that a chocolate teapot is in orbit round Mars, it's down to me to provide the evidence, not for you to refute it. Geddit?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 07:55 PM

Evidence? EVIDENCE???

We don't got to show you no steenkin' EVIDENCE!

These are Trumpists we're dealing with, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 08:20 PM

No worries, Greg. These people are easy to deal with. When their backs are to the wall they deliberately miss the point. If you don't believe me, just watch Teribus's next post! 😂

Damn fine pasta bake tonight. Home-made tomato sauce with white onion, chilli and basil. No bloody garlic. Layered with orecchiette pasta, masses of shredded mozzarella and loads of parmigiano reggiano. Parmesan to the non-in-crowd. I'll live forever. Washed down gorgeously with Nero d'Avola. I was in Avola last September, beautiful Sicilian town. Jaysus, the romance! Pasta con le sarde on the menu this week. See Sicily then die!


[You're OK, the Mafia don't let their guys bother tourists - they need our money too much!]

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 08:51 PM

Steve Shaw - 12 Mar 17 - 07:47 PM

"We don't do belief, Teribus. We prefer evidence."

There's that "WE" again non-gang member.

If that indeed was the case Shaw all would be well and good, but the fact is you never do bring any evidence to back up anything you say including your baseless accusations and allegations, in fact you are down on record as stating that it was not needed - So - Are you lying again Shaw?

Your pal Greg F states succinctly how you and your little gang approach things beautifully.

FBI figures state that the rise in anti-Islamic hate crimes has been something in the order of 67% up from 154 reported instances to 257 - Meanwhile anti-Semitic hate crimes rose by 9% in the same period to 664 reported incidents. UK statistics are worse - look them up Huffington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 17 - 09:08 PM

Stick to the point. You are defending bobad's allegation that "Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." Do you agree with that? YES OR NO, Teribus? I have severe doubts. As such, I want the figures. Do you have them? Can you get them from bobad? YES OR NO, Teribus? You routinely accuse your adversaries of baseless assertions. Can you support bobad's assertion with numbers? YES OR NO, Teribus?? No mucking about now! Deliver, Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 02:57 AM

Having looked at the USA, UK, EU and in Russia the numbers seem to support what bobad stated. I couldn't give a toss what you might think or believe, your ideology, like most "liberal socialists" blinds you to reality. Should I go through the list and document each country by country? Nope, as you have stated your position you wouldn't accept any substantive evidence from any source, so why should I bother?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 04:03 AM

PS Shaw - If indeed you do want figures (Which I very much doubt) look them up for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

I quite like this game, Steve. It means you can make any assertion you like and it is up to other people to disprove it. I could say, for instance, that Teribus once showed his arse off Blackpool Tower and 14 old ladies fainted in horror. It would then be true until proven otherwise. Not that I would do a thing like that of course because, as we all know, it would be stupid.

Now, tell me more about this flying chocolate teapot.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 04:51 AM

You havn't looked at India though have you, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 05:28 AM

Can't say I recall ever discussing hate crimes in the USA.

The FBI "figures" you do provide cannot be put into context as we don't know the numbers of Islamic or Jewish people in the States.

If the population of Jewish people were 665 and 664 reported hate crime against themselves that would be a highly significant figure, If there were 6.64 million Jewish people that figure of reported hate crime becomes less significant.

That figure could also be distorted by one person making a high number of reports.

So many variables, none of which Bobad cites.

I don't know about anyone else but I would consider that Bobad has an axe to grind.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:19 AM

This is pure comedy. The point is about backing up the assertion thst bobad made, not about my ideology or anything else. As a matter of fact, irrelevant though it is to the point, I have no axe to grind at all over the targeting of one religious group over another. It's all equally disgusting. I see that you've gone from unqualified support to "seeming" to support. His assertion was a matter of quantity. You make assertions of that nature if you have the numbers to back them. So where are the numbers?


And did you really show your arse to old ladies off Blackpool Tower? Bloody nippy up there. Can't think of a quicker way of exacerbating the piles,,...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

Dave the Gnome - 13 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

"I quite like this game, Steve. It means you can make any assertion you like and it is up to other people to disprove it."

We all know that you like the game Gnome, you and your pals have been playing it for years and so far on so many threads that is exactly what the likes #, Lighter, Iains, Akenaton, bobad, Stanron, Keith A of Hertford and myself have done. In doing so we have exposed your dearly held myths, half-truths and misrepresentations. We have also exposed a number of your lot as liars and dissemblers, with the result that all that you are left with is to waffle on inanely about anything that comes to mind provided that it is as far from the subject under discussion as possible. Please do keep it up, it lets everyone know that you have run out of argument and steam - best you go look out one of your Hawaiian shirts, get on your bike and peddle down to the pub smelling wild flowers on the way - might require a "Wide Load" escort though which must detract a little from the pleasure of it.

By the way Gnome the incident you mention might have been that time in the summer of '75, I could send you a glossy 10x8 of it if you like. You'd recognise it immediately as it would bear a striking resemblance to what you see every time you look into a mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:34 AM

When did India become part of "the western world" Mr Carter (UK)?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM

The numbers, please. "Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." That's what you supported. Well support it with numbers. You or bobad, I don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM

Not bad Teribus - Bit more imagination there. Keep it up and people may think, eventually, that you are not as bad as you seem :-)

So, as you are now supporting the act of posting unsupported assertions and expecting people to disprove them I suppose you are also saying it is OK for anyone to do it. Or is it only unsupported assertions that you and your mates make that are allowed?

Just wondering like.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:51 AM

So there we have it.

An admission of guilt.

Terrikins did moon at 14 old ladies in Blackpool.

Remember folks you read it here first.

Cheers Teri, you have brightened up my morning.

Off on my travels later so won't be here as much (I'm know that will please you Teriblossom so there's no need to respond)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:59 AM

No Gnome just exposing you lot for the lying hypocrites that you undoubtedly are. As always with your brand of "socialism" one law applies to you and your pals while all others are held to a far more stringent standard - it is the only way you can enter any discussion, however when confronted, like all bullies, you turn and run.

Keep those hairy little fat knees of yours pumping away Gnome and remember to wear your hat - don't want to dazzle oncoming traffic do we Gnome? Mind your specs don't fog up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM

When it was colonised by the British, Teribus. Its certainly as much Western world as Russia which you seem to be including.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

So, in the words of your mate Keith then, Teribus, come up with some of these lies I have told and hypocrisies I have committed.

Slipped back into poor cliches with insults I'm afraid. You really do need to work harder at it. As to bullies - I find the best way to deal with them is take the piss. You don't like it much do you?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 07:22 AM

I always like the words attributed to Mahatma Gandi, David. When asked what he thought of Western civilisation he replied that it would be a good idea :-) I suspect it is an urban myth but would love it to be true.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 07:38 AM

Mr Carter, I would suggest that you look up what is involved in "colonising" any lump of land. You could then tell me how a country of less than 18 million people could "colonise" a massive land mass inhabited by over 350 million people. On the particular subject of "India" it did not become a country until 1947 prior to that it consisted of areas directly administered by the United Kingdom, which were collectively called British India, and those ruled by indigenous rulers, but under British tutelage or paramountcy, and called the princely states - India was NEVER a British colony, between 1600 and 1858 the British Government only interest in India was supporting any policy that ensured the best interests of the Honourable East India Company (A trading organisation). It was only after the Indian Mutiny of 1857 that the British Government stepped in.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 07:55 AM

Of the 1,402 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

    52.1 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders' anti-Jewish bias.

    21.9 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias.

    4.3 percent were victims of anti-Catholic bias.

    4.1 percent were victims of bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

    3.6 percent were victims of anti-Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Other) bias.

    3.4 percent were victims of anti-Protestant bias.

    1.3 percent were victims of anti-Other Christian bias.

    0.6 percent were victims of anti-Mormon bias.

    0.4 percent were victims of anti-Hindu bias.

    0.4 percent were victims of anti-Sikh bias.

    0.1 percent were victims of anti-Jehovah's Witness bias.

    0.1 percent were victims of anti-Buddhist bias.

    0.1 percent were victims of anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.

    7.6 percent were victims of bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

Source: FBI 2015 Hate Crime Statistics

The numbers for Canada and the EU are very similar if not worse - look them up if you dare.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 08:29 AM

Interesting figures.

To put them in context we need to understand that the population of the USA is in excess of 300,000,000.

There were 1354 reported hate crimes according to the FBI figures.

I am NOT suggesting those crimes should be overlooked but in the great scheme of things they are rare.

You have a reasonable chance of being struck by lightening in the USA 267 per annum on average.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 09:16 AM

"By the way Gnome the incident you mention might have been that time in the summer of '75, I could send you a glossy 10x8 of it if you like. You'd recognise it immediately as it would bear a striking resemblance to what you see every time you look into a mirror. "

:0)....Brilliant! The biter bit I think!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM

Ah Terikins coming out as the phantom flasher

Who is he, don't know
is he here, probably
think I see him sitting next to you
the famous phantom flasher

(from the singing of Gary & Vera Aspey)

Don't know about biter bit, foot in mouth springs to mind more readily.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 09:29 AM

"Interesting figures."
Totally impossible to calculate as Israel has declared that 'New Antisemitism' is opposition to the State of Israel and is regarding all criticism of Israeli policy as "opposition", which it is not.
The main victims of Israel's redefinition of antisemitism are the Jewish people who are blamed indirectly by Israelis for their ethnic cleansing policy - that is the inevitable result of claiming all criticism of its policies are "antisemitic".
The few details of Labour so-called antisemitism that have emerged ar criticism of Israel and not the Jews.
Of course, it would be helpful if some self-described supporters of the Jewish People didn't invent Parliamentary pacts of silence (the classic antisemitic slur, dating back to the Nazis is "a Jewish Plot")
It would also helpp if hypocrites who go ballistic at ny criticism of Israel, had the balls to condemn such 'Jewish pacts of silence' despite the fact that the culprit is one of his gang
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM

On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what's racism; women can define sexism; Muslims are trusted to define Islamophobia. But when Jews call out something as antisemitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 10:19 AM

Bobad, Even using your figures, the chances of someone of the Jewish faith being the victim of a hate crime, is approximately one in five hundred thousand.

Whilst not seeking to condone such crime we do need to get things in perspective that is one in half a million.

Good grief you have far more chance of being shot in the States.

Bet you support the gun lobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 10:27 AM

No, fair's fair, Raggy. Teribus did try a bit of banter and it was a bit better than his usual feeble attempts. Still not original but better all the same. The fact that ake likes it makes me think it should probably be downgraded from a 4/10 back to a 2/10 though.

Sorry Teribus. Your second mate has let you down again.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 10:48 AM

Jim,
Totally impossible to calculate as Israel has declared that 'New Antisemitism' is opposition to the State of Israel and is regarding all criticism of Israeli policy as "opposition", which it is not.

We were discussing incidents of hate crime, so your claim is irrelevant as well as being completely false.

The few details of Labour so-called antisemitism that have emerged ar criticism of Israel and not the Jews.

Not true.

some self-described supporters of the Jewish People didn't invent Parliamentary pacts of silence

They didn't.

It would also helpp if hypocrites who go ballistic at ny criticism of Israel, had the balls to condemn such 'Jewish pacts of silence' despite the fact that the culprit is one of his gang

No-one here are "hypocrites who go ballistic at ny criticism of Israel.
No-one but you has ever suggested a "Jewish pact of silence" and I regard it, like you comparing of Israel to Nazi Germany, as anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 10:50 AM

You are quite right, the bit of light hearted banter is very welcome.


The only problem is I now have a picture of a him mooning with his Union Flag Y fronts round his knees. Not a pleasant vista.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 10:05 AM

From The New York Times Opinion Section: "America is now governed by a president and party that fundamentally don't accept the idea that there are objective facts. Instead, they want everyone to accept that reality is whatever they say it is."

Much like Shaw's "we", wot!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 12:12 PM

"We were discussing incidents of hate crime, so your claim is irrelevant as well as being completely false."
As no crime has ben specified, we are discussing unqualified accusations of anti-Semitism.
"Not true."
How do you know if they are not described?
"They didn't. "
You did and you may add it to your list of things you have said and are now denying
"No-one here are "hypocrites who go ballistic at ny criticism of Israel."
Again - you did and you accused them of refusing to describe the anti-Semitism that was supposed to have taking place
"and I regard it, like you comparing of Israel to Nazi Germany, as anti-Semitic."
may Jewish critics have said exactly th same thing - including ex leaders of the Security forces.
Israel has torn up any workable definition of the term and has adopted the anti-Semitic defence of using the Jewish people as human shields so it doesn't have to answer for its war crimes.
We really are finished with this denying what you have written Keith - you wrote all the things I have accused you of and I've reproduced them over and over again.
Your persistent lying has no place here.
By the way - Bobad is a hypocrite because he knows what you said about the Jewish Parliamentarians and he doesn't even have the bottle to condemn it.
He would have denied that you said it ifhe believed that to be the case - he's had moths of opportunity to do so
So much for his defence of the Jewish People !!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 12:27 PM

Jim,
As no crime has ben specified, we are discussing unqualified accusations of anti-Semitism.

No Jim. What was being discussed was the number of hate crimes against Jews compared to other hate crimes.

"Not true."
How do you know if they are not described?

You claimed that "The few details of Labour so-called antisemitism that have emerged ar criticism of Israel and not the Jews."

That is not true.
Guardian last week,
"Walker was suspended by Labour in September after she questioned why Holocaust Memorial Day did not recognise other genocides, even though the day is set up to commemorate other atrocities, including those in Rwanda and Bosnia. "
"Walker, who was removed from her position in Momentum, also said she was concerned about definitions of antisemitism used by the party, saying she had not seen a definition she could "work with".
The long-time activist had previously been suspended from the party after she wrote on Facebook that Jewish people had been "the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade". She was later reinstated."

"Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London who was suspended last summer for comments that Adolf Hitler had been a Zionist, was referred to the NCC earlier this year"

" Marc Wadsworth, a party activist who, at the launch of a report into Labour and antisemitism, challenged Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth that she was working "hand in hand" with the media."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/labour-members-may-be-expelled-over-claims-of-antisemitism-and-bullying

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 12:40 PM

Jim,
You did and you may add it to your list of things you have said and are now denying

Again you did

There you go again Jim!
If you want to accuse me of saying something, QUOTE ME.

What you do is give your interpretation of what I said, which I always deny because it is completely false.

If I really said such nonsense QUOTE ME DOING IT!!

Israel has torn up any workable definition of the term

Who cares how Israel defines it.
Britain and other democracies have adopted a sensible definition.
It may not suit you but you will have to get used to it.

Bobad is a hypocrite because he knows what you said about the Jewish Parliamentarians and he doesn't even have the bottle to condemn it.

That is because I said nothing that anyone could object to Jim.
You lied about me again because that is the only way you can pursue your deranged vendetta against me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 01:47 PM

Any moron can just go on denying Keith
You are beyond a joke
I've quoted yuo until I could memorize everything you've ever written
Deny this and you are a liar
You have - you are a liar Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 01:47 PM

Any moron can just go on denying Keith
You are beyond a joke
I've quoted yuo until I could memorize everything you've ever written
Deny this and you are a liar
You have - you are a liar Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 01:57 PM

If I really ever said such nonsense QUOTE ME DOING IT!

You would if you could, liar.
Only by lying can you pursue your deranged vendetta.
It is a kind of madness Jim.

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

We've had an awful lot lot of bluster and changing the subject and attack as defence here. So a reminder. This is what was said:

"Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today."

In spite of several requests for the numbers to support this,all we've had is a list containing a relatively extremely tiny number of unspecified religious-based hate crimes from one huge western country. A five-second geography lesson for bobad and Teribus: the US is not "most of the western world." We have also been dared to do the research that bobad and Teribus clearly haven't done. On top of that we have been treated to the usual tirade of diversions and insults for being so bold as to ask for verification. I've lost count of the number of times that Teribus has accused other people of making "baseless assertions," etc. (generally unjustified, but hey ho). Well if you routinely want your way clear to make these allegations against others, you'd better be squeaky clean yourself. I don't know whether the assertion about these hate crimes is true or not and it isn't a fight in which I have a dog. So I ask again. Where are the numbers that support the assertion? The ones so far on offer are not only vague and unspecified (what kinds of hate crimes, for example?), they are tiny in number considering the population of the one country in question, so they do not in any way satisfy the assertion. Apologies for valiantly sticking to the point. It would be nice if it became more of a trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 03:44 PM

" Apologies for valiantly sticking to the point. It would be nice if it became more of a trend."

If you think it would be nice to stick to the point why babble on about weeds, bike rides, cheap wine deals at Tesco's etc. etc. Nice if everyone else stuck to the thread but apparently you retain the right to wreck it by deliberate sabotage. If you like the idea of sticking to the thread, what perversity drives you to do the opposite? and how do you expect sticking to the point to become a trend, bearing in mind the pathetic example you set?

Everyone can accept a degree of drift in a thread.Your version of drift is a massacre.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 03:57 PM

Number of police-reported hate crimes motivated by religion, Canada, 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 04:31 PM

So, Iains, who determines what is thread drift and what is valid in terms of the thread topic. Certainly not the likes of me or or you. A thread often oscillates back and forth between the sublime and the ridiculous. The rule on moderation here is as little as possible. It is only when things get seriously nasty that threads get closed and posts get deleted. There is certainly nothing remotely nasty in anything about flowers or wine or scenery. There has been a lot of nastiness from some and some tongue in cheek banter between all parties. You have no right whatsoever to try to define the rules of what can and cannot be posted. If you have any complaints you can always ask the moderators to delete any nastiness. Deleting off topic posts on any thread would be a nightmare that I do not think anyone would willingly get involved in though.

In my opinion

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 04:38 PM

Attacks against Jews continue to occur significantly more frequently than attacks against Muslims. The evidence produced through police reports on hate crimes and studies by anti-hate organizations show that in North America, Europe and Australia the most frequent targets of abuse and violence on account of religious affiliation continue to be Jews.

The four countries with the highest numbers of Jews, outside of Israel, are the United States, France, Canada and Britain.

In the United States, the FBI collects and analyses hate crime statistics across the nation. For the eleven years from 2004 to 2014, anti-Jewish hate crimes constituted between 58% and 70% of all hate crimes in the U.S. in the "Religion" category. By comparison, in the same period, anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. constituted between 7-16% of the total in that category. It follows that in the United States, a Jew is six times more likely to be attacked than a Muslim, despite the fact that American Jews outnumber Muslims by only two to one.

In France, 50% of racist attacks are against Jews. The remaining 50% of racist attacks are spread over other groups including Africans, Arabs, Asians, Muslims, Roma and others. In France, where Muslims currently outnumber Jews by about ten to one, the number of attacks against Jews is nevertheless much higher than against Muslims.

In Canada, the Ontario Human Rights Commission reported that in 2009, of all religion-based hate crimes in the country, 70% were committed against Jews. In 2010, more than 50% were against Jews, and 26% were against Muslims. Muslims outnumber Jews in Canada by about three to one.

In Britain, the Metropolitan Police Service database on hate crimes in London showed a rise in both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim incidents for the twelve month period from July 2014 to July 2015. Anti-Jewish incidents increased by 93% and anti-Muslim incidents by 70%. During this period, the number of offences against Muslims rose from 478 to 816, and against Jews from 258 attacks to 499. There was one anti-Jewish attack for every 601 Jews, and one anti-Muslim attack for every 3,676 Muslims. There are approximately 300,000 Jews and 3 million Muslims in the UK. Yet a Jew is four times more likely to be attacked than a Muslim. Of concern, was the British media's skewed coverage of these statistics – headlining the rise in anti-Muslim incidents, but minimising the far greater rise in anti-Jewish incidents.

In Australia, over the twelve month period from September 2014 to September 2015, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) reported 190 anti-Jewish incidents, and the Islamophobia Register Australia (IRA) reported 280 anti-Muslim incidents. However, over half (55%) of the incidents in the IRA report are online content, including posted comments on social media. The ECAJ report, based on Australian Human Rights Commission criteria, records general expressions of hatred against the group (in the traditional media or online) separately, and not as "incidents." Only clear cases of person-on-person hate communications are included as incidents.

To compare like with like, it is instructive to extract from the ECAJ and IRA statistics the number of incidents affecting each community which involve physical abuse (including assaults, apprehended violence and damage to property) and person-on-person verbal abuse. For the twelve month period from September 2014 to September 2015, there were 128 anti-Muslim incidents and 180 anti-Jewish incidents in these categories

The Jewish community is the only community within Australia whose places of worship, schools, communal organisations and community centres need, for security reasons, to operate under the protection of high fences, armed guards, metal detectors, CCTV cameras and the like. The necessity is recognised by Australia's law enforcement agencies and arises from the high incidence of physical attacks against Jews and Jewish communal buildings over the last three decades, and continuing threats.

All the evidence, from the police services of European countries to the American FBI, and others who monitor hate incidents, shows that antisemitism remains the most enduring and deep-seated form of group hatred. In the last 25 years, antisemitic incidents have become increasingly frequent, violent and murderous, especially in the traditional heartland of antisemitism – Europe.

Yet in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, the inane proposition that "Islamophobia is the new antisemitism" continues to enjoy currency in some circles – including among people who should know better.

http://jewsdownunder.com/2016/08/05/statistics-prove-islamophobia-isnt-new-antisemitism/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 05:05 PM

Dthe G. Not only do you have problems achieving clarity of meaning when posting but apparently problems of comprehension as well. I make the point that for a person to propose one set of actions when repeatedly actioning the opposite is a little perverse to say the least.
I cannot imagine where you conjured up the rest of your little diatribe from.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 05:06 PM

Iains. This was a head-to-head with Teribus. Nothing to do with you. He supports bobad's assertion. I ask for numbers. They are not forthcoming. Teribus or bobad could have drifted off into wild flowers, etc., but they decided to take me on (with all the usual insults and diversions). I'm really glad that my straying into wild flowers annoys you. Take a tip: annoy me back and try it for yourself. In fact, as you never have anything else useful to offer, I recommend it to you. Now here I go again wasting time on you.

You're trying hard, bobad. But which of these crimes against Jews were driven by religion? That's what you said.   I've already pointed out that you have failed to specify. It's a complicated matter, innit? What were the crimes exactly? Were they all prosecuted to conviction or were some of them unresolved complaints? And what about the rest of the western world? I want the numbers, not percentages of what I already suspect (from your US statistics) to be tiny numbers of reported crimes. You don't really get this, do you? We want to know how serious this issue is. Good point from Dave about the comparison with US gun crime, and Raggytash's comparison with the likelihood of being struck by lightning, You could well be right. But, knowing how you've vastly over-inflated Labour's "serious antisemitism problem," you'll have to forgive me for being somewhat sceptical. So I want numbers and I want details. You made the claim. Surely you have the facts. So let's have 'em, preferably without the drip-feeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 06:46 PM

Shaw, Iains is doing a great job in exposing your posturing hypocrisy - one rule for your lot and everybody else has to comply with whatever rules you want to set.

How dare you come out with such crap as:

1: We have also been dared to do the research that bobad and Teribus clearly haven't done.

Well I have done the research Shaw - Why haven't you? Are you afraid that you will actually learn something? Or are you just simply incapable of doing it? Any idea of the number in thousands of Jews who have fled France in the last 12 months Shaw? Go on Shaw just take a look, just for once do some work yourself.

2: On top of that we have been treated to the usual tirade of diversions and insults for being so bold as to ask for verification.

Oh you mean like wild flowers, wild garlic, beer, bikes, hill walking, recipes, super-market deals and cafes?

3: I've lost count of the number of times that Teribus has accused other people of making "baseless assertions," etc. (generally unjustified, but hey ho).

So far everything that Keith A of Hertford has been accused of has been baseless - he has asked repeatedly for examples - and answer got he none. Same with Akenaton, same with Iains, same with me. But in recent exchanges I managed to show quite clearly that you were a stalker, a troll and a liar.

A "head to head" with Teribus Shaw? Bobad made a statement that I examined and found that the figures and percentages supported what he claimed. As such I do not have to justify or prove anything to you. If you wish to challenge what was said then figuratively get off your lard arse and do some work yourself

4: Best for last - Apologies for valiantly sticking to the point. It would be nice if it became more of a trend. - Coming from you of all people Priceless, absolutely priceless

Spouting such rubbish as this you are becoming an embarrassment even to your pals.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 17 - 07:10 PM

Teribus, bobad made the assertion that "Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." You fully supported that statement. Well so far all I've managed to squeeze out of both of you is some information about the US that listed a pretty tiny number of alleged hate crimes that failed to specify what kinds of crimes they were, whether they were in fact religion-based at all and what proportion of them were ever prosecuted leading to conviction. Then we have some slightly better information from an Australian website but which still did not specify how the alleged crimes were delineated and which still did not provide the information needed to confirm that the crimes outnumbered all those against other religious groups combined in most of the western world. I'm a patient man and I don't mind trying time and again to get you to focus on a matter that you have championed. I am interested to hear from you that you can confirm the matter. It won't disadvantage me in any way if you prove to be correct and it will inform further debate. It's a pity that you can only resort to bluster, sidetracking and offensive comment. You must think that the people on this forum are all idiots. Well some of us can focus and see right through you. Try focussing yourself. You'll do your shattered reputation a power of good.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 02:30 AM

"Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." - bobad

I believe that statement to be correct - Teribus

USA:
Anti-Semitic attacks = 52.1% of all reported religious hate crimes
All other combined = 47.9%
Statement made by bobad IS supported wrt the USA

Anyone who disbelieves and disagrees with bobad's statement is perfectly free to come up with figures and statistics to counter that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 02:46 AM

Not only do you have problems achieving clarity of meaning when posting but apparently problems of comprehension as well.

Well, Iains, as you will have seen I often use the phrase

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

It explains a lot of the communications issues here. Unlike you however I fully understand that communication is a two way issue and if I either fail to understand something or fail to make something clear I know that I am partially at fault. You, on the other hand, appear to be arrogant enough to believe that you will always understand everything and always make everything clear. Let me put you straight on that. You don't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:07 AM

On the subject of "off topic", of course some threads veer off on to other matters, that is usually natural progression in discussion, but Stevie has stated repeatedly that "we", meaning him and his playmates are employing this tactic deliberately in an attempt to "piss off" other members, have threads closed or cause people they do not "like" to leave the forum permanently.

This would seem to be a gross contravention of forum rules regarding moderation, but Stevieboy has latched on to the idea that this section is no longer being moderated, so the children are taking full advantage.
This is a difficult situation to rectify, as we don't want to go back to the wholesale removal of posts or complete threads without explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:10 AM

Sorry, wrong thread....A

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:11 AM

It was primarily your posts that were being removed and your intervention in threads that got them removed or closed, ake. If I remember rightly you are also banned from posting on a regular basis. Speaks volumes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:17 AM

Steve, Bobad has supplied the best available stats.
The FBI figures and those for Canada are quite unequivocal.
The figures quoted in his link for Europe complete the picture.
In Europe and Britain special protection has to be provided for Jewish schools only.

Why is it so important to you to deny the persecution of Jewish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM

"If I remember rightly you are also banned from posting on a regular basis. Speaks volumes." - DtG

Unlike yourself Gnome, Akenaton as far as I can see from his posting history has been a regular and frequent contributor who has not taken any "holidays" by adopting a GUEST identity nor has he been banned from doing anything by anybody. He is a person who you CAN have a conversation with, a person you CAN discuss things with even although opinions on various subjects and facets of subjects are diametrically opposed. With your little gang the opposite is the case. The format with you and your "crowd" is simple any point put that you disagree with (Irrespective of any detail that supports it) is subject to flat denial followed by personal abuse.

Also your memory is faulty with respect to the first part of your last post:

"It was primarily your posts that were being removed and your intervention in threads that got them removed or closed, ake"

Don't think that it was Gnome. The main culprits in getting threads closed and on a few occasions entirely deleted were "The Musktwats" (three people posting with one identity), Shaw, Carroll, Greg F, Raggy and yourself. For four years now that little gang, of which you are most certainly a member, have stalked, bullied, mobbed and tried to run at least two members from this forum. Thankfully you have been spectacularly unsuccessful in this venture. The latest tactic and attempt at achieving your goal is via the introduction of fatuous and inane twaddle which according to Shaw will apparently drive us all from the forum in a matter of a couple of weeks (Fat chance). I am so glad that throughout the course of his life he has learned to live with a stream of what must have been, on numerous occasions, bitter disappointments, because in this cause he is going to be disappointed yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:38 AM

"Why is it so important to you to deny the persecution of Jewish people."
Why do you persistently distort what people have to say Keith
The Israel regime's policy of using the Jewish People as human shields to protect themselves from charges of war crimes has led to a distorted picture of what is and is not Antisemitism and totally taken it out of context
This - from one of the leading Jewish commentators, sums up what has given rise to today's situation - mind you, his opinions have probably earned him the title of "self hating Jew" to people like you
Jim Carroll


DOOM-MONGERING
What U.S. Jews Don't Get About European Anti-Semitism JONATHAN FREEDLAND
01.14.13 2:30 PM ET
My inbox is giving me a queasy sensation of déjà vu. It's filling up with anguished claims that British schools are banning the teaching of Hebrew. As it happens, no such thing has occurred. The government has simply proposed that elementary schools be required to teach one of a list of seven officially recommended languages: French, Spanish, German, Italian, Mandarin, ancient Latin, or Greek. Hebrew is no more about to be banned than is Arabic or Russian. Jewish schools will still be able to teach Hebrew. It's just that, if the move goes ahead, they'll also have to teach French, Spanish, or one of the other approved seven languages.

The feeling of déjà vu arises because six years ago I received an email titled "In Memoriam." It announced that British schools had banned the teaching of the Holocaust, lest Muslim pupils be offended. The email declared this to be "a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it." Spurred into action, the New York Post published a lament by Barry Rubin, denouncing "UK Schools' Sickening Silence."
Sickening it would indeed have been. Except not a word of the accusation was true. The teaching of the Holocaust was and remains compulsory in English schools. (Indeed, a long-running scheme in operation then and now ensures two seniors from every high school in the country visit Auschwitz on trips subsidized by the U.K. government.) The story was a fabrication, arising from a research study that had found—and criticized—a single teacher in a single English school who had avoided selecting the Shoah for specialist coursework because she suspected a resistance to the topic among some Muslim pupils. Government ministers condemned the action of that single teacher and reiterated that the subject was a mandatory part of the curriculum.

Nevertheless the email kept coming, circulated and recirculated. In almost every case the point of origin was the United States. I remember drafting a standard reply, which I would cut and paste and send to concerned American friends, putting the record straight. The myth proved so persistent, however, that in 2008 the education secretary felt compelled to take the apparently unprecedented step of writing to every ambassador in London, refuting the In Memoriam email and reiterating that the teaching of the Holocaust was "non-negotiable."
Forgive all the detail, but this is becoming a regular task for a British Jew: reassuring our American friends that, no, we are not living in a new dark age and, no, the lights are not going out all over Europe. We are getting used to the fact that U.S. Jews seem ready to believe the worst of this part of the world. In the two cases I've mentioned, many Americans were all too willing to accept that British Jews were about to become latter-day Marranos, driven underground by an anti-Semitic government and its jihadist allies, huddling together to teach their children about the Holocaust in Hebrew whispers.
You'd be surprised how often my fellow British Jews are required to disabuse U.S. friends of such delusions. One leading communal professional recalls a London meeting with an American counterpart, the latter first insisting on a tearful embrace: "You're going through what my grandmother went through in Russia, with the pogroms," he sniffed. Another asked if a Jew like him would be safe walking through the streets of London.
Such fear is fed by emails spreading bogus scare stories, but also by the claim that the British capital has become Londonistan, a sharia-ruled outpost where al Qaeda sheiks preach on every street corner, and by the breathless description of London as "the hub of hubs" when it comes to "delegitimization" of Israel. In this conception, the calendar might say 2013 but the year is forever 1938, with the Jews of Europe on the verge of another catastrophe—and once again too blind to see it coming.
So are those sounding the warning guilty of hysteria? Or are those who dismiss it guilty of a terrible naiveté? The clearest answer can be found in that most Jewish of practices: the drawing of distinctions.

It's useful, for example, to distinguish between Western Europe on the one hand and Eastern and Central Europe on the other. There are troubles for Jews in both, but they are not the same and they are too often misleadingly conflated. So, yes, in Western European countries the tension between established Jewish communities and emerging Muslim ones can be perilous. The most extreme case is surely last year's multiple homicide—the victims, three children and a rabbi—in Toulouse, apparently by a jihadist maniac. Others have long been alarmed by the case of Malmö, Sweden, a city whose 45,000 Muslims make up 15 percent of the population and where Jews have been on the receiving end of persistent anti-Semitic attacks—a fact denied by the town's Social Democratic mayor, who instead criticized Malmo's Jews for their failure to condemn Israel. As he put it, "We accept neither anti-Semitism nor Zionism in Malmö."
Beneath these two headline cases are a hundred other lesser points of friction, often on campus, situations where Jews and Muslims have clashed, frequently over the politics of the Middle East. A consistent trend, noticed by those who monitor anti-Semitism, is a surge in anti-Jewish hatred whenever the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians escalates.
Leave Western Europe, to head east or more recently south, and the picture alters. Here the threat to Jews is of a much more familiar variety. The far right, white and bellicose, has surfaced with a vengeance especially in those former communist nations where ultra-nationalism was once repressed. Witness the rise of Jobbik, a Hungarian neo-fascist party that is the country's third largest. One Jobbik M.P. recently called for all of Hungary's Jews to be registered on a list, as a threat to "national security." The resonance of a list of Jewish names in Hungary, where 500,000 Jews were rounded up and murdered during the Nazi period, hardly needs to be spelled out.
In Greece, the Golden Dawn party concentrates its fire on the Asian and African immigrants whom it blames for the country's economic woes. But like so many rightists of the old school, when it comes to Jews, Golden Dawn can't help themselves. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Golden Dawn's leader, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, denies there were gas chambers or ovens at Nazi death camps and has a penchant for giving the Nazi salute." The party spokesman recently rose in Parliament to read out a passage from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
But here's where distinctions matter. The Greek fascists speak of Israel as a "Zionist terror state," but that sets them apart from many of their comrades on the European far right, who have become late converts to the cause of Israel—chiefly, it seems, as a way of confronting Muslims. The British National Party leader Nick Griffin is fond of boasting that his was the only party that supported Israel during Operation Cast Lead in 2008–9, while activists in the rival English Defence League have grown oddly fond of the Israeli flag.
Tellingly, this habit can lead many of those U.S. doom-mongers, constantly warning of European Jewry's dire plight, to be rather selective about which threats they see. While they can be relied upon to highlight any Islamist clash with Jews, they often stay hushed about those ultra-rightists who have no love for the Jews but who, for their own reasons, have decided to declare themselves pro-Israel. So there was no email circular about Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law and Order party, even though Kaminski began his career in the National Rebirth of Poland movement, inspired by a 1930s fascist ideology that dreamed of a racially pure nation, and even though in 2001 Kaminski upbraided the president for daring to apologize for a 1941 pogrom in the town of Jedwabne that left hundreds of Jews dead. (Kaminski said there was nothing to apologize for—at least not until Jews apologized for the suffering they had inflicted on the Poles.) Presumably the email circulators hesitated to condemn the Polish politician because he had branded himself as pro-Israel.
Similarly, Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, found very few ambassadors willing to meet her when she paid a 2011 visit to the United Nations in New York—save for Israel's then U.N. envoy, Ron Prosor, who later had to apologize for giving the impression that he was happy to turn a blind eye to Mme. Le Pen's record because she had made the right noises on Israel. For some, it seems, anti-Semitism is only worthy of strenuous opposition when it is combined with hostility to Israel or comes from a Muslim source.
Which brings us to another crucial distinction. Episodes that Americans see as evidence of growing European hostility to Jews are often understood by European Jews to be criticism of Israel—in fact, not even criticism of Israel itself, but rather of a specific strain of Israeli policy: what we might call the Greater Israel project of continuing and expanding settlement of the West Bank. When European governments either abstained or voted for the Palestinian upgrade to semi-statehood at the U.N. in November, plenty in Israel and the U.S. saw that as yet another example of age-old European hostility to the Jews. But very few Jews here saw it the same way. We understood it for what it was, an attempt by governments avowedly sympathetic to Israel's right to security to revive the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their calculation might have been wrong, but it was not anti-Semitic. Yet one regular on the academic anti-Semitism studies circuit tells me that U.S. speakers repeatedly cite examples of anti-Israel discourse as if they were synonymous with instances of anti-Jewish racism. A scholar in his own right, he is infuriated that his colleagues fail to make this critical distinction.
Above all, those stubbornly committed to the view of twenty-first century Europe as one large Auschwitz-in-waiting have a one-eyed view of Jewish life on this side of the Atlantic. They rightly report the chilling news of an apparent ban on religious circumcision in Germany or the move to outlaw shechita, the ritual slaughter required to produce kosher meat, in Poland—but fail to report when those decisions, initially taken at a lower level, are swiftly overturned.
More importantly, they fail to notice the intriguing paradox of European Jews' current position—that there are dangers, but also great triumphs. Take Britain. Jews here can feel unease at the tenor of the national conversation on Israel—a newspaper cartoon here, a politician's turn of phrase there—but they also enjoy a Jewish life that is in many ways richer than ever before. Limmud, the annual festival of Jewish learning that has gone global, began here, while Jewish Book Week has become London's biggest literary festival. The Booker Prize for 2011 was won by a novel about Jews, The Finkler Question, written by a man who has chronicled the British-Jewish sensibility better than anyone, Howard Jacobson. British TV currently airs not one but two highly rated sitcoms depicting Jewish family life. Meanwhile, if the current polls hold till 2015, Britain's next prime minister is set to be the first Jewish leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband—who repeatedly stresses the pride he takes in his Jewish roots. Not bad for a Jewish community that, according to the latest census, numbers just over 260,000, less than 0.5 percent of the British population.
This is why the Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Jewish racism, opens its report with an insistence that "British Jewry should be defined by its success and vibrancy rather than by anti-Semitism." That is true of Britain but also beyond. Mark Gardner, director of communications for the CST, used to compare the European-Jewish situation to a glass that some will see as half full, others as half empty. Now he says, "There are two glasses, one half full, one half empty, and they stand side by side." That sounds sufficiently nuanced to be correct. But don't expect anyone to be putting that message in an email.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:56 AM

Dthe G
"f I either fail to understand something or fail to make something clear I know that I am partially at fault."

HOOOOORAAAAAY! You fiinally get the point. If you don't know what you are saying, and don't understand it when you say it, one could perhaps legitimately ask:- What in hell are you doing here?
You really must have a serious conversation with AKELA CONCERNING YOUR FUTURE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:17 AM

It would be good if you didn't deliberately misrepresent what I've said, Keith. I haven't denied anything. I've simply asked some challenging questions in order to elicit corroboration for an assertion made by bobad. What he says may well be right. But I want to know how that conclusion was reached. So far we haven't got information from anything like "most of the western world," the numbers given from the US are peculiarly low to say the least considering the size of the country and the nature of the alleged crimes and how many of them were prosecuted hasn't been revealed. A hate crime could be anything from murdering a Jew at random in a subway to calling a Jew "yid!" across a crowded bus. Just over a thousand unspecified crimes in the US over a year is hardly convincing evidence in itself of a major problem. If we've now been given the best stats available, as you allege, then all I can say is that they fall well short of confirming the original assertion about "most of the western world."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

Teribus

nor has he been banned from doing anything by anybody

I happen to know different. You could ask him but even if you don't believe me it is still the truth.

Iains

You seem to fail to grasp the concept that communication is a 2 way process. I suspect you get that from your mentor. If I am partially to blame for any communications failure you need to ask yourself where the rest of the blame lies.

As to what I am doing here. Well, meeting Mudcatters from across the globe in real life. Arranging Mudcat events in real life. Contributing useful knowledge above the line. Annoying you apparently. How about you?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:28 AM

Just to be perfectly clear Keith
You with your Jewish pacts of silence and Bobad, who refuses to condemn your debasement of Jews and his associating Israeli war crimes with the Jewish People – are the only anti-Semites here
Vacuously insulting as ever, I see Iains
Have you really nothing to say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 07:19 AM

Jim, no-one is discussing Israel so stop trying to make this yet another Israel thread.

Steve,
So far we haven't got information from anything like "most of the western world,

We have figures for Europe, USA and Canada.
They are a very large chunk of "the Western world" and likely to be representative. What major region do you have doubts about?

You have had what you asked for. An acknowledgement would be acceptable.
Or, have you any evidence at all, however trivial or slight, to the contrary?

calling a Jew "yid!" across a crowded bus.

That is no more likely to enter the hate crime statistics than any other BME person being abused across a crowded bus, so that is not a flaw in the interpretation of them.
In fact, Jews are usually much less identifiable in a crowded bus than other BME folk.

Jim,
You with your Jewish pacts of silence and Bobad, who refuses to condemn your debasement of Jews and his associating Israeli war crimes with the Jewish People – are the only anti-Semites here
Vacuously insulting as ever, I see Iains
Have you really nothing to say?

Yes. I have to say that you are lying.
I have never claimed any "Jewish pact of silence."
That is a made up slur.
I have given Bobad nothing to condemn.

Also, no decent democracy has ever accused Israel of any war crimes.
It is an invention of its enemies, and anyway we are not discussing Israel!
You are obsessed!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 07:55 AM

Don't sweat Shaw and Carroll, they are knee jerking just as I expected they would and showing their true colours. Present them with irrefutable statistics and they will claim that that it's not a hate crime because it doesn't fit with THEIR definition of anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 08:00 AM

"Jim, no-one is discussing Israel so stop trying to make this yet another Israel thread."
The only possible reason for any rise in Antisemitism is due to Israel's use of the Jewish People in defence of its war crimes - thatat has had an international effects - it's bound to.
How about responding to ewhat the "Self-hating Jew" has to say on the matter?
Everything here is directly traceable to Israel's attempts to block BDS
How dare you attempt to stop that fact being raised - who do you think you are - Donald Trump?
If you start this attempts at censorcship again, I shall get you stopped
You do this far too often.
I'm thoroughly pissed off with being called a liar by someone who is unable to distinguish the difference between truth and lies
If you have any proof of my lying, put them up individually and see how they stand up
"Muslim implants" - a fact - show it wasn't
Child marriage - likewise
Accusations of Jews in Parliament staying silent because ofg their love for the party - same again
You have said them all and have reiterated your filthy accusations over and over again.
You even made up an invisible army of experts to hide behind because you had no other way of getting out of what you said you believed.
Israel is a TERRORIST STATE that has been saved from being put on trial by U.S. vetoes - we watched the result of those crimes on our televisions - we don't need the silence of self-serving politicians to show us otherwise
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

No axe to grind in this particular argument but the question that springs to mind is what kind of hate crimes are we talking here? I have heard about a lot of shootings and beatings metered out to Muslims. Are the same crimes being committed against other religions? There is a huge difference between calling people names, no matter how nasty, and shooting them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 08:21 AM

No-one is denying your statistics and no-one is denying hate crimes. The figures you've provided in no way confirm the assertion you made. I'm not moving the goalposts here, simply asking the same question every time. Your US figures are just weird, given the tiny number of offences in such a huge country, and your over-interpreted Aussie figures come from a biased source. Which doesn't mean they're not true, but I note your usual modus operandi (and can predict your response to that). As for the European stats, they are largely just percentages, not numbers, and give us no concept of the scale of the problem. The numbers given for the UK are both low and they contradict your case. Similarly, the Aussie numbers are low. In the context of other types of crime such as robbery, burglary, assault and domestic abuse, you have failed to show that the crimes you're complaining about amount to any kind of crisis. Maybe they do, but you seem to be having difficulty demonstrating that. We need the numbers, and we need to know the nature of the crimes. You simply have not delivered. I'm not being awkward. I have no axe to grind and I detest all hate crime. I'm saying that you made an assertion that you seem unable to confirm, nothing like.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 09:24 AM

The day is gloriously sunny here on the Connemara, the broom is in blossom, a sublime yellow. A gentle breeze blowing and I'm sitting in a bar having a pint with stunning views out across the strand to the island.

Wonderful, truly wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 10:00 AM

The sun's battling the murk this end, kind of a metaphor for what's going on here on Mudcat. But, to continue with the metaphor, the sun gains in strength every day and the murk will disappear. I've been emptying my freezer to clear out the ice, long overdue. Found a boneless smoked pork loin three years out of date. I'm going to cook it anyway. Either it'll make good butties or the bin can have it. The blackbirds are currently enjoying a pound of blackberries from 2014. 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 10:42 AM

"I have heard about a lot of shootings and beatings metered out to Muslims."

Really?? Where Gnome? Who was responsible for these shootings and beatings Gnome? Wouldn't be beatings and shootings carried out by other Muslims by any chance would it?

Shaw:
"The figures you've provided in no way confirm the assertion you made."

In what way do they not confirm what bobad stated Shaw? Explain yourself:

"Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." - bobad

USA:
Anti-Semitic attacks = 52.1% of all reported religious hate crimes
All other combined = 47.9%

Statement made by bobad IS supported wrt the USA

Nothing ambiguous or unclear about it. 52.1% is a greater percentage than 47.9% - True?

"In the context of other types of crime such as robbery, burglary, assault and domestic abuse, you have failed to show that the crimes you're complaining about amount to any kind of crisis." - Shaw

No-one is looking at it "in the context of other types of crime" Shaw - (Nice try at deflecting the argument Shaw but do have a go at "valiantly sticking to the point" in order to stay on track) - and nobody is claiming there is a crisis

Here is the claim once again - "Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." - bobad

Plain statement of fact - I see no mention of it being of epidemic proportions Shaw, nor do I see any claim there of there being a crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 10:49 AM

Steve,
The figures you've provided in no way confirm the assertion you made.

Yes they do.

We have figures for the four countries, all Western, with the biggest Jewish populations plus Australia.
Only Britain showed crimes against against Jews to be a minority, but increasing so fast that they probably are a majority now.
You might dismiss FBI figures as "weird" but they are the official USA figures, accepted and used by all agencies who do not think them at all weird.

your over-interpreted Aussie figures come from a biased source.

Over-interpreted how, and why biased?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 10:53 AM

Interesting to note that you consider the U.S.A. to be "most of the Western World", Mr. T. Strange for a old-style, imperialist King-And-Country sort of fellow, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 10:55 AM

Really?? Where Gnome? Who was responsible for these shootings and beatings Gnome? Wouldn't be beatings and shootings carried out by other Muslims by any chance would it?

Yes, other Muslims as well as some non-Muslims. It really doesn't matter who does it. It is still a hate crime based on religion. Do you think it is any different and should not be counted for some reason?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 11:03 AM

Jim,
The only possible reason for any rise in Antisemitism is due to Israel's use of the Jewish People in defence of its war crimes

Of course it is not. There was anti-Semitism before there was an Israel!

Everything here is directly traceable to Israel's attempts to block BDS

You are obsessed! Nothing here is anything to do with Israel!

If you start this attempts at censorcship again, I shall get you stopped

Good luck with that.

Accusations of Jews in Parliament staying silent because ofg their love for the party

They did not stay silent.
Just like those who complained of misogyny and homophobia they gave full details of their grievances to the Party, which they do no doubt love.
If I have ever said anything different, then quote me.
Good luck with that too, liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 11:51 AM

I have already stated that all such hate crimes are not acceptable.

Context is needed. 1400 crimes of which those carried out on people of the Jewish faith total about 700 is tantamount to SFA in a population of 300,000,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 12:17 PM

Crisis, Teribus? What crisis? 😂 If there's no crisis, why are you, Keith and boobs making such a big issue out of it? If those US figures are true then hate crime against Jews in the western world's biggest nation is almost negligible! And of course it's relevant to put the statistics in the context of other crime. The reason you don't want to is that the numbers, at least the ones we've managed to squeeze out of you lot, are so low! And not one of you has yet managed to tell us the facts about the crimes - what kinds of crimes or whether they were prosecuted or merely recorded as complaints. Take this as a rather outrageous conjecture: in the US, which victim of a hate crime is likely to be taken more seriously, a Jewish victim or a Muslim victim? Who is the more likely to complain in an environment in which antisemitism is the issue of the day whereas Islamophobia comes under "don't be silly, now?" Is that really more outrageous than your claim that Muslims attacking other Muslims skew the stats? And once again, Teribus, percentages as opposed to numbers tell us nothing about the scale of the problem. From the evidence so far presented it seems that you're around 50% as likely to be struck by lightning and hundreds of times more likely to be killed by gun crime in the US that be the Jewish victim of religion-driven crime. Lies, damn lies and statistics, Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 12:22 PM

That should be around 25%, not 50%.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 12:33 PM

Good article on the poison of anti-Semitism raging through Europe today in the The Atlantic "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?"

France's 475,000 Jews represent less than 1 percent of the country's population. Yet last year, according to the French Interior Ministry, 51 percent of all racist attacks targeted Jews. The statistics in other countries, including Great Britain, are similarly dismal. In 2014, Jews in Europe were murdered, raped, beaten, stalked, chased, harassed, spat on, and insulted for being Jewish. Sale Juif—"dirty Jew"—rang in the streets, as did "Death to the Jews," and "Jews to the gas."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 12:52 PM

In 2014, Jews in Europe were murdered, raped, beaten, stalked, chased, harassed, spat on, and insulted for being Jewish

How many? Were they all murdered, raped, beaten etc. just for being Jewish or did it happen for some other reason and they just happened to be Jewish. If they leave Europe, where is it suggesting the go? The USA where things are, seemingly, just as bad? Poor comment. Poor journalism. Sensationalism just for the sake of it.

In my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

No crime stats. We can't judge without numbers. If the numbers are anywhere near as low as you allege for the US and UK I'd say we have a virtually irreducible problem. How many crimes, what kinds of crimes, were they prosecuted or simply recorded as complaints? I know you think we should all be terribly shocked and not question things like this lest we get called antisemitic, but you can't go on like this, and we remember only too well the song and dance you made about a few handfuls of Labour members out of 600,000. You're peddling propaganda only and avoiding the hard reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 01:27 PM

Getting back to something more sensible. I just played 'Constant Billy' through about half a dozen times without a hiccup! Wonder why the title reminded me of someone?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 02:32 PM

Good article on the poison of anti-Semitism raging through Europe today in the The Atlantic "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?".

Interesting. Have they also got a good article on the rampant Islamophobia raging thru Europe and epecially the U.S. & in the age of Trumpism, is it time for Muslims to flee the United States for safe sanctuary elsewhere? Mexicans ditto?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 02:35 PM

"Of course it is not. There was anti-Semitism before there was an Israel!"
And the horror of the Holocaust tended to put it on the back burner.
You rightists turned your attention to Muslims - they became the new victims of your bigotry
Israel has re-kindled the flames of antisemitism by claiming its State Terrorism to be on behalf of the Jewish people - it vindicates its having done so by inventing New antisemitism - which is criticism of Israeli policy.
I am not obsessed - it's called humanitarianism when you object to seeing Israelis persecuting Muslims just as the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis
Accusations of antisemitism e#appeared within weeks of Corbyn reiterating his support for BDS
Each time those accusations died down, they were reignited by right wing Lablour supporters who returned from meetings with Israeli leaders.
Your shitty - "no decent nation..." shite as a defence of Israeli terrorism is as pathetic as it gets.
These people have remained silent on Israel's atrocities, just as they continued to support Assad when he was filling his torture chambers with opponents, or as Cameron went to pay his respects to the founder of the regime in Saudi while it was administering 1000 lashes to a journalist who spoke out of turn.... or all the other monsters we have sold weapons to or backed up with our support.
That's how "decent" your decent nations are.
Now about all tehse "liesw" I've been telling.
Put them up and let's see how they work out
You described Muslims as culturally implanted to rape under-age girls -fact
You invented a phantom army f supporters who you claim saidf the same thing, yet have consistently refused #to quote them - fact
You claim never to have attacked the Muslim religion yet, in the middle f a discussion on Muslim criminality, you put up as argument a thousand year old Muslim Child marriage as evidence that the Muslim religion = under-age perversion - fact.
At a loss to com up with examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party, you accused the Jewish members of Parliament of refusing to describe the antisemitism
I have put your quotes up to you on all of these claims and will continue to do so as lonng as you go on denying you have made them - fact
I ask again - what lies have I told
Jim Carroll

A JEWISH VIEW of ANTISEMITISM

Alon Ben-Meir - from The Jewish Post
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of International Relations and Middle Eastern Studies at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University and is also a Senior Fellow and the Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute. Dr. Ben-Meir is an expert on Middle East politics and affairs, specializing in peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab states. For the past 25 years, he has operated as a liaison between top Middle Eastern officials and has been directly involved in various high-level negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:01 PM

The point Keith has been making for months, is that there is a "culture" of Anti Semitism in the left of the UK labour Party.

I have no doubt this is correct as I used to hear anti Jewish sentiments expressed regularly among the left wing people with whom I attended demos and protests in the seventies.

These people opposed the policies of the Israeli Govt vis a vis, the Palestinian question.......but abused all Jews on the fact that they were Jews, regardless of their personal views.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:13 PM

The point Keith has been making for months, is that there is a "culture" of Anti Semitism in the left of the UK labour Party

That indeed has been his claim, however it is devoid of any evidence to support said claim.

In the Age of Trump and "alternative facts", this should come as no surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:29 PM

Greg I haven't been following this thread very closely, but I'm sure Keith has provided evidence from other Labour members and I have definitely heard the comments which I have mentioned.

As far as most of the Left are concerned it is "easy meat" to blame the policies of the Israeli govt on ALL Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:37 PM

Suggest you try actually following the thread, Ake, before posting gratuitous uninformed nonsense.

And one more time: Nobody here - except idiots like yourself, Bobad & your fellow travellers, have EVER blamed the policies of the Israeli Governemt on "All Jews", or any Jews for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM

Have they also got a good article on the rampant Islamophobia raging thru Europe and epecially the U.S

Yes, there is Islamophobia in the world today but hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews even though there are some 1.8 billion Muslims in the world as compared to 16 million Jews. Why do you think that is? Why are Jews leaving Europe in record numbers, for their safety, while Muslims are arriving in Europe for theirs? Anti-Semitic incidents in Britain are at levels never before seen while in Germany attacks on German Jews have increased by 200%. Why is this happening?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:45 PM

Jim, the aims and actions of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are not to be confused with the very complicated and nuanced Palestinian /Israeli question.

Islamic Jihadists are dedicated to the overthrow and destruction of any who do not support their cause.....they discriminate against women and butcher homosexuals out of hand.....they are a menace to humanity, a menace which is becoming more dangerous and insidious by the day......how can a devout man of the left like yourself raise his voice in support of such an abomination?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:47 PM

I presume the Israeli govt is composed of Jews Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 03:52 PM

I think you are going round with a bad lot Greg, surely no need for insults my responses to you are always civil.

Other than the odd bit of banter.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:18 PM

I presume the Israeli govt is composed of Jews Greg?

Entirely missing the point as ever, Ake. Willfully or idiotically is open to question.

hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews

And your documentation for that assertion is what, exactly, Boo?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:28 PM

Another strange assertion

but hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews

Have you the remotest idea how many Muslims have been killed in hate crimes against their religion? How many Shia have been killed in Jihads by Sunnis? How many Sunni Muslims killed by Shias? Just because they believe a different version of the same fairy story. Or, because it is Muslim killing Muslim, is that OK?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:37 PM

Or, because it is Muslim killing Muslim, is that OK?


Of course it's OK, Dave - ANYONE killing Muslims is OK for these folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:08 PM

Nah then, chaps. Time to lighten up. These two clueless chappies (I'll lump them together and call them boob-ache just so you know to whom I refer) are having a desperate go at getting the poison back in. No debate is possible. I'm going to change the subject. They can't complain because they're already off-topic themselves, innit. So here goes.

What have we not talked about recently?

Er, lessee... maybe not footie (even though I'm jubilant about Man U getting beaten by Chelsea last night - where's old Mike when you need to gloat!) Not cheese - already come up in another thread...School dinners, done it already...

I know. Eggs. Don't worry, I won't rehash that Yorkshire omelette joke. I love eggs in any shape or form. Used to drink 'em straight from the shell until Edwina Currie put me off with her Salmonella scare. Used to beat three eggs with a drop of brandy and drink 'em for brekkie when I was at university. Cold hard boiled in a picnic, beautiful. Scotch eggs, glorious. Waitrose do one with black pudding. A little belter. Sunny side up, sunny side down, I don't care if they're a bit snotty. Share, fellers, share. And don't bloody tell me you're allergic to eggs. You'll be getting baseless assertions if you do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:12 PM

Is yer talkin' aboot eggs or aigs, then, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:24 PM

"Where Gnome? Who was responsible for these shootings and beatings Gnome?"

I suppose answering one question out of three is a marked improvement, now answer the first two, so that we get the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 05:45 PM

Another strange assertion

We're talking in the West, but you knew that and are just misrepresenting, as usual, to further your agenda - you should be ashamed of yourself. If you want to bring the Middle East into the discussion then we can talk about anti-Semitism in the Islamic world but I doubt you would like to hear about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 06:06 PM

Before Dave gets a chance to reply, Teribus, I'm going to ask YOU three very serious questions.


1. How do you like your boiled eggs?


2. Do you wear Asda five-pairs-for-eight-quid boxers?


3. We (yes, WE) demand the whole truth about your trouser-drop on Blackpool Tower in 1975, and we (yes, WE) will not accept grubby photoshopped 8x10s.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 06:09 PM

Are you trying to sell me life insurance now, Greg? Pointless, mate - I've made a will and you're not in it! 😂

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

"Have you the remotest idea how many Muslims have been killed in hate crimes against their religion? How many Shia have been killed in Jihads by Sunnis? How many Sunni Muslims killed by Shias? Just because they believe a different version of the same fairy story." - Gnome

Here is the statement made by bobad that is being discussed, so far the evidence put forward seems to support it:

"Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today." - bobad

What do you understand as being "the western world" Gnome? And could you let us know in which countries in the western world Muslims are being slaughtered wholesale in this Sunni/Shia Jihad to the extent where those countries are being consumed by it?

I see that those challenging bobad's statement have yet to introduce any evidence to disprove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 03:50 AM

No, fair's fair Steve. Teribus did ask some other questions - 4 actually rather than the 3 he states.

Really?? Where Gnome? Who was responsible for these shootings and beatings Gnome? Wouldn't be beatings and shootings carried out by other Muslims by any chance would it?

And I did only answer the last one so here are the other answers.

1. Yes
2. Various places around the world
3. Various criminals
and
4. I already answered.

So, now Teribus, maybe you will answer my question.

Do you think it is any different and should not be counted for some reason?

Over to you.

As to your most recent post, my statement was in answer to poobads assertion that "hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews". Do try to keep up.

Eggs - Do you want to hear my egg joke?

Would you like one egg or two?

Just one please. I think one egg is an oeuf.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 04:23 AM

Greg F and bobad are specifically addressing the situation in North America and Europe Gnome, as can be plainly seen from their respective posts so in terms of the discussion what one sect of Muslims is doing to another sect elsewhere in the world is irrelevant apart from demonstrating that they are about 500 years behind when it comes practicing religious tolerance, perhaps like us they will eventually get over it in time. Up until such a time, if they wish to slaughter one another then they'd best restrict their efforts to their own countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

There was not mention of North America and Europe in that post though was there Teribus? It was a plain unequivocal "hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews".

500 years behind practicing religious tolerance eh? Fancy that. I didn't realise that the the troubles in Norther Ireland were 500 years ago. I could have sworn I remember one religious cult or another blowing members of another up but, if it was 500 years ago, I suppose I can't have.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 05:17 AM

Jim,
Your shitty - "no decent nation..." shite as a defence of Israeli terrorism is as pathetic as it gets.

I was just pointing out that decent democracies, like Scandinavian and other EU states, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand do not regard Israel as any kind of "rogue" or "terrorist" state and do not accuse it of war crimes.
The countries that do are the nastiest regimes with the very worst records of human rights abuses themselves. And you of course Jim.

You described Muslims as culturally implanted to rape under-age girls -fact

Lie. I have never linked any religion with any kind of offending and always maintained that religion played no part in it. You even quoted me last week, in red ink, saying just that!

You invented a phantom army f supporters who you claim saidf the same thing, yet have consistently refused #to quote them - fact

Lie. I quoted five people at the time, all in a position to know, saying the offending derived from the culture.

You claim never to have attacked the Muslim religion yet, in the middle f a discussion on Muslim criminality, you put up as argument a thousand year old Muslim Child marriage as evidence that the Muslim religion = under-age perversion - fact.

Lie. I made a factual statement about one of the Prophet's (peace be upon Him) wives which was relevant to the discussion, but added that child marriage was legal here until recently.

At a loss to com up with examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party, you accused the Jewish members of Parliament of refusing to describe the antisemitism
I have put your quotes up to you on all of these claims and will continue to do so as lonng as you go on denying you have made them - fact

Lie.
They did not refuse to describe anti-Semitism.
They did not stay silent.
Just like those who complained of misogyny and homophobia they gave full details of their grievances to the Party to deal with.
If I have ever said anything different, THEN QUOTE ME, LIAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

Steve,
If those US figures are true then hate crime against Jews in the western world's biggest nation is almost negligible!

Wrong Steve.
In the context of hate crime, Jews are overwhelmingly the most likely to be victims.

It may be true that hate crime is a tiny proportion of all crime, but Bobad was quite right to point out that Jews are disproportionately the victims of it.

Why do you feel the need to trivialise their persecution?
Have you any evidence whatsoever, however slight, to fuel your challenges?
If not, what is fueling them??

That persecution is driving Jews from Europe in a new mass exodus, while other minorities are striving to get in!
Are you happy with that?
In France and Britain Jewish schools, and only Jewish schools, require armed guards.
Are you happy with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 05:30 AM

Dave,
There was not mention of North America and Europe in that post though was there Teribus?

This whole discussion was and is specifically about hate crime in the West, and his post was made in that context.
If the context was changed he would have had to state that he was now referring to the global situation.

Your ruse to discredit his argument was just blatantly dishonest Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:03 AM

"The point Keith has been making for months, is that there is a "culture" of Anti Semitism in the left of the UK labour Party."
He has failed miserably to make that point
The only evidence we have is that pro Israeli group received their instructions from Israel that they should smear the Labour Party with accusations of Anti-Semitism following Corbyn's statement that, under his leadership, they would back BDS- the date of that first meeting precedes the attacks by a few weeks.
Corbyn won overwhelming support of the rank and file of the Labour Party, so the New Labour crowd decided to jump on the Anti-Semitism bandwagon n order to rid the party of a leader thy considered a liability.
The makeup of the most vociferous of those attacks indicates this s the case, and the fact that no evidence has emerged other than unqualified accusations by one or other of the above groups.
You do not try people for murder without specif#ying who they killed, and what form the murder took - and then you go on to provide your evidence.
You don't try people for theft without specifying what they stole and how they stole it.
You do not accuse a party of "serious Antisemitism" without describing what form it takes and how many are involved - you certainly don't accuse a party with a track record of opposing bigotry and racism (even you, with your pathetic claims of being a "socialist" knows that)
All this is not just natural justice - it's common sense - making accusations without backing them up with facts is witch-hunting, pure and simple.
Despite this, Keith has persisted in his sickening campaign, refused to acknowledge the simple commonsense that YOU CANNOT FIND ANYBODY GUILTY OF ANYTHING ON THE BASIS OF ACCUSATIONS ALONE - YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN DETAIL - NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING - END OF STORY
So desperate was Keith to smear the Labour Party he let slip his own antisemitism by inventing a 'Jewish Plot', whereby all the Jewish Members of parliament decided to cover up the nature of Labour's Antisemitism in the interests of their party - how desperate can you get?
He has led throughout - he invented his invisible army yet still refuses to quote them - and he never will
No public figure would ever make such a horrendous statement publicly without not only losing their job, but also be prosecuted for inciting race hatred.
To suggest that an entire religious/racial community is culturally inclined to have underage sex is racist filth - that is what Keith has indulged in here
In the middle of his attempts to smear the Muslim people by quoting a thousand year old marriage - and clams he only did so before somebody else did - pathetic!!
Keith continues to insist that he quoted the people he claimed backed his "implant" theory – yet he continues to refuse to quote them
He now says that the Jewish members of parliament did describe the anti-Semitism that was taking place after having said that they had told Corbyn and left it in his hands, and made no statements publicly "for love of the party" – his inconsistencies have now gone ballistic
I brought this up again when he called me a liar and challenged me to produce evidence of his extremism – he has dug himself an deep hole which he would be well advised to climb out of and walk away from.
I have no wish to continue with this, but I will not be called a liar, nor will I let racism pass without challenging it – it does too much damage to people's lives and it destroys our society.
This is a decent forum which gives us the opportunity to express and share our ideas – I would certainly not with to be part of it if I were either a Muslim or a homosexual – the few extremists we have, have made certain of that.
Jim Carroll
"The point Keith has been making for months, is that there is a "culture" of Anti Semitism in the left of the UK labour Party."
He has failed miserably to make that point
The only evidence we have is that pro Israeli group received their instructions from Israel that they should smear the Labour Party with accusations of Anti-Semitism following Corbyn's statement that, under his leadership, they would back BDS- the date of that first meeting precedes the attacks by a few weeks.
Corbyn won overwhelming support of the rank and file of the Labour Party, so the New Labour crowd decided to jump on the Anti-Semitism bandwagon n order to rid the party of a leader thy considered a liability.
The makeup of the most vociferous of those attacks indicates this s the case, and the fact that no evidence has emerged other than unqualified accusations by one or other of the above groups.
You do not try people for murder without specif#ying who they killed, and what form the murder took - and then you go on to provide your evidence.
You don't try people for theft without specifying what they stole and how they stole it.
You do not accuse a party of "serious Antisemitism" without describing what form it takes and how many are involved - you certainly don't accuse a party with a track record of opposing bigotry and racism (even you, with your pathetic claims of being a "socialist" knows that)
All this is not just natural justice - it's common sense - making accusations without backing them up with facts is witch-hunting, pure and simple.
Despite this, Keith has persisted in his sickening campaign, refused to acknowledge the simple commonsense that YOU CANNOT FIND ANYBODY GUILTY OF ANYTHING ON THE BASIS OF ACCUSATIONS ALONE - YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN DETAIL - NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING - END OF STORY
So desperate was Keith to smear the Labour Party he let slip his own antisemitism by inventing a 'Jewish Plot', whereby all the Jewish Members of parliament decided to cover up the nature of Labour's Antisemitism in the interests of their party - how desperate can you get?
He has led throughout - he invented his invisible army yet still refuses to quote them - and he never will
No public figure would ever make such a horrendous statement publicly without not only losing their job, but also be prosecuted for inciting race hatred.
To suggest that an entire religious/racial community is culturally inclined to have underage sex is racist filth - that is what Keith has indulged in here
In the middle of his attempts to smear the Muslim people by quoting a thousand year old marriage - and clams he only did so before somebody else did - pathetic!!
Keith continues to insist that he quoted the people he claimed backed his "implant" theory – yet he continues to refuse to quote them
He now says that the Jewish members of parliament did describe the anti-Semitism that was taking place after having said that they had told Corbyn and left it in his hands, and made no statements publicly "for love of the party" – his inconsistencies have now gone ballistic
I brought this up again when he called me a liar and challenged me to produce evidence of his extremism – he has dug himself an deep hole which he would be well advised to climb out of and walk away from.
I have no wish to continue with this, but I will not be called a liar, nor will I let racism pass without challenging it – it does too much damage to people's lives and it destroys our society.
This is a decent forum which gives us the opportunity to express and share our ideas – I would certainly not with to be part of it if I were either a Muslim or a homosexual – the few extremists we have, have made certain of that.
Jim Carroll
"The point Keith has been making for months, is that there is a "culture" of Anti Semitism in the left of the UK labour Party."
He has failed miserably to make that point
The only evidence we have is that pro Israeli group received their instructions from Israel that they should smear the Labour Party with accusations of Anti-Semitism following Corbyn's statement that, under his leadership, they would back BDS- the date of that first meeting precedes the attacks by a few weeks.
Corbyn won overwhelming support of the rank and file of the Labour Party, so the New Labour crowd decided to jump on the Anti-Semitism bandwagon n order to rid the party of a leader thy considered a liability.
The makeup of the most vociferous of those attacks indicates this s the case, and the fact that no evidence has emerged other than unqualified accusations by one or other of the above groups.
You do not try people for murder without specif#ying who they killed, and what form the murder took - and then you go on to provide your evidence.
You don't try people for theft without specifying what they stole and how they stole it.
You do not accuse a party of "serious Antisemitism" without describing what form it takes and how many are involved - you certainly don't accuse a party with a track record of opposing bigotry and racism (even you, with your pathetic claims of being a "socialist" knows that)
All this is not just natural justice - it's common sense - making accusations without backing them up with facts is witch-hunting, pure and simple.
Despite this, Keith has persisted in his sickening campaign, refused to acknowledge the simple commonsense that YOU CANNOT FIND ANYBODY GUILTY OF ANYTHING ON THE BASIS OF ACCUSATIONS ALONE - YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN DETAIL - NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING - END OF STORY
So desperate was Keith to smear the Labour Party he let slip his own antisemitism by inventing a 'Jewish Plot', whereby all the Jewish Members of parliament decided to cover up the nature of Labour's Antisemitism in the interests of their party - how desperate can you get?
He has led throughout - he invented his invisible army yet still refuses to quote them - and he never will
No public figure would ever make such a horrendous statement publicly without not only losing their job, but also be prosecuted for inciting race hatred.
To suggest that an entire religious/racial community is culturally inclined to have underage sex is racist filth - that is what Keith has indulged in here
In the middle of his attempts to smear the Muslim people by quoting a thousand year old marriage - and clams he only did so before somebody else did - pathetic!!
Keith continues to insist that he quoted the people he claimed backed his "implant" theory – yet he continues to refuse to quote them
He now says that the Jewish members of parliament did describe the anti-Semitism that was taking place after having said that they had told Corbyn and left it in his hands, and made no statements publicly "for love of the party" – his inconsistencies have now gone ballistic
I brought this up again when he called me a liar and challenged me to produce evidence of his extremism – he has dug himself an deep hole which he would be well advised to climb out of and walk away from.
I have no wish to continue with this, but I will not be called a liar, nor will I let racism pass without challenging it – it does too much damage to people's lives and it destroys our society.
This is a decent forum which gives us the opportunity to express and share our ideas – I would certainly not with to be part of it if I were either a Muslim or a homosexual – the few extremists we have, have made certain of that.
Jim Carroll
"The point Keith has been making for months, is that there is a "culture" of Anti Semitism in the left of the UK labour Party."
He has failed miserably to make that point
The only evidence we have is that pro Israeli group received their instructions from Israel that they should smear the Labour Party with accusations of Anti-Semitism following Corbyn's statement that, under his leadership, they would back BDS- the date of that first meeting precedes the attacks by a few weeks.
Corbyn won overwhelming support of the rank and file of the Labour Party, so the New Labour crowd decided to jump on the Anti-Semitism bandwagon n order to rid the party of a leader thy considered a liability.
The makeup of the most vociferous of those attacks indicates this s the case, and the fact that no evidence has emerged other than unqualified accusations by one or other of the above groups.
You do not try people for murder without specif#ying who they killed, and what form the murder took - and then you go on to provide your evidence.
You don't try people for theft without specifying what they stole and how they stole it.
You do not accuse a party of "serious Antisemitism" without describing what form it takes and how many are involved - you certainly don't accuse a party with a track record of opposing bigotry and racism (even you, with your pathetic claims of being a "socialist" knows that)
All this is not just natural justice - it's common sense - making accusations without backing them up with facts is witch-hunting, pure and simple.
Despite this, Keith has persisted in his sickening campaign, refused to acknowledge the simple commonsense that YOU CANNOT FIND ANYBODY GUILTY OF ANYTHING ON THE BASIS OF ACCUSATIONS ALONE - YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN DETAIL - NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING - END OF STORY
So desperate was Keith to smear the Labour Party he let slip his own antisemitism by inventing a 'Jewish Plot', whereby all the Jewish Members of parliament decided to cover up the nature of Labour's Antisemitism in the interests of their party - how desperate can you get?
He has led throughout - he invented his invisible army yet still refuses to quote them - and he never will
No public figure would ever make such a horrendous statement publicly without not only losing their job, but also be prosecuted for inciting race hatred.
To suggest that an entire religious/racial community is culturally inclined to have underage sex is racist filth - that is what Keith has indulged in here
In the middle of his attempts to smear the Muslim people by quoting a thousand year old marriage - and clams he only did so before somebody else did - pathetic!!
Keith continues to insist that he quoted the people he claimed backed his "implant" theory – yet he continues to refuse to quote them
He now says that the Jewish members of parliament did describe the anti-Semitism that was taking place after having said that they had told Corbyn and left it in his hands, and made no statements publicly "for love of the party" – his inconsistencies have now gone ballistic
I brought this up again when he called me a liar and challenged me to produce evidence of his extremism – he has dug himself an deep hole which he would be well advised to climb out of and walk away from.
I have no wish to continue with this, but I will not be called a liar, nor will I let racism pass without challenging it – it does too much damage to people's lives and it destroys our society.
This is a decent forum which gives us the opportunity to express and share our ideas – I would certainly not with to be part of it if I were either a Muslim or a homosexual – the few extremists we have, have made certain of that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:05 AM

No ruse and no dishonesty, Keith. The statement said nothing about the west. Anyone reading it would assume it was global. I was attempting to rectify that situation and have now done so.

Your ruse to discredit my statement is just blatantly dishonest Keith

Talking of eggs and ruses I wouldn't mind trying Oeufs à la Russe. Anyone got a good recipe?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:05 AM

Whoops
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

Armed guards in British schools? Are you sure of that Keith. I can find no mention of gun toting security guards in the UK. What I did find was an interesting comment by Amber Rudd, reported in the Telegraph, though

The Home Secretary said she was forced to act after receiving 924 reports of anti-Semitic incidents, including 86 violent assaults, last year.

Ms Rudd warned against the "increasingly sophisticated" tactics of far-right extremists in the wake of the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox.

She said that groups were becoming better at harnessing the use of social media for promoting their cause and hauling in new members.

Hardly pertinent to a discussion on the Labour party is it? May as well talk about wild flowers...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 07:23 AM

"Whoops," Jim? Has somebody trod on a duck? Floated off an air biscuit?? Cut the cheese???

Burble on, Keith. Thou talketh ordure and you'll get no more ebb and flow from me (wasn't that a cartoon once? Eb and Flo? Train of thought here: cartoon? Eb and Flo? Keith? Mickey Mouse? Teribus? Cap'n Pugwash? Any more for any more?)

Dave, get the bloody joke right! Ahem:

Q. Why does a Frenchman only have one egg for breakfast?

A. Because to a Frenchman one egg is un oeuf!


You don't have to like French jokes, of course. After all, one man's fish is another man's poisson... Whaddam I like! 😂

What is the Western World? Why, anything the other side of the old panhandle, of course! Wyatt Earp, Cisco Kid, Duke Wayne, the Loan Arranger -- there, that should cover most of it...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

At the risk of seeming flippant in this already far too light-hearted thread, I wish to say that, in my opinion, very few hate crimes are directed at people because of their religion as such. It's a matter of attacking "the other" just like it always was with "religious wars" in the past. The Crusaders were not fighting for their better God, were they? That was a ruse to justify their quest for power, wealth and expansion of empire. A conspicuous Cross on your battledress to distinguish you from the heathen you were conquering looked good back home too. If there were really a God he'd be bloody angry at anyone using his name to justify hate crimes.

And as for us being 500 years more "advanced," try telling that to the women being hassled by Christian hypocrites outside abortion clinics.

Not trying to egg anyone on, you understand....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

"Armed guards in British schools? "
Keith is using a single attack by a single nutter in Toulouse to show a 'rise in antisemitism, v#carefully omitting to mention that at the same time the attacker also targeted French Muslim soldiers, killing seven and wounding fiv
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 07:47 AM

Yeahhh - Captain Pugwash. I have a perfect contender for that role. We just need to decide who is Seaman Staines and Roger the cabin boy now...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM

Jim,
I have no wish to continue with this, but I will not be called a liar, nor will I let racism pass without challenging it –

Then stop telling lies about what I have said.
If you want to challenge something, quote what I really said.
I too will not let racism, including anti-Semitism, pass without challenging it.

Dave,
No ruse and no dishonesty, Keith. The statement said nothing about the west. Anyone reading it would assume it was global.

They would not.
The statement did not need to specify the West because that had been established as the subject of discussion.
He would only need to specify if he was changing the subject from the West.
Your ruse to discredit his point was blatantly and knowingly dishonest Dave.
Different morality.
Different language.

Jim again,
"Armed guards in British schools? "

And French schools but only Jewish ones.
Deny that?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 08:50 AM

Today,
"Labour Cllr Barry Henley (Brandwood) said: "These are clearly anti-Semitic postings. In my view there should be a Labour Party investigation into Ms Gove-Humphries membership and suitability to be a candidate and in the meantime a new candidate should be put in place."
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/call-labour-hall-green-candidate-12743989

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:13 AM

I see Dave has gone over to the dark side with the liars, cheaters and dissemblers who, unable to confront facts that destroy their ideological positions, try to divert from them with phony counter arguments that are so obvious as to be pitiful. So keep it up Dave, I'm laughing at you as you flounder in the muck with the rest of your pack.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:21 AM

But, but, but, Keith, you said "In France and Britain Jewish schools, and only Jewish schools, require armed guards." This means that Jewish schools in France and Britain have armed guards. Are there any armed guards in British schools? Do you have any evidence of that?


And -

Anyone reading it would assume it was global.

They would not.

Well, I did. Some I guess that other people would.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Glad you are getting to see that as well. Unlike you however I will not say that either is shit. Just different.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:33 AM

So keep it up Dave, I'm laughing at you

To be laughed at by someone of your ilk is a compliment of the highest order poobad. It is when you begin to agree with me I will worry.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:40 AM

Here's the exchange Gnome:

1: Greg F. - 14 Mar 17 - 02:32 PM

"Good article on the poison of anti-Semitism raging through Europe today in the The Atlantic "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?" (bobad).

Interesting. Have they also got a good article on the rampant Islamophobia raging thru Europe and epecially the U.S. & in the age of Trumpism, is it time for Muslims to flee the United States for safe sanctuary elsewhere? Mexicans ditto?

Greg F's question to bobad - How did you miss the "rampant Islamophobia raging thru Europe and epecially the U.S. Gnome?

2: bobad responded to Greg F's question about "Islamophobia" I Europe and the U.S.A. as follows:

bobad - 14 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM

"Have they also got a good article on the rampant Islamophobia raging thru Europe and epecially the U.S" Greg F's question.

"Yes, there is Islamophobia in the world today but hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews even though there are some 1.8 billion Muslims in the world as compared to 16 million Jews. Why do you think that is? Why are Jews leaving Europe in record numbers, for their safety, while Muslims are arriving in Europe for theirs? Anti-Semitic incidents in Britain are at levels never before seen while in Germany attacks on German Jews have increased by 200%. Why is this happening?"

Direct question responded to by an honest and accurate answer.

3: YOU then jump in Gnome, selectively quote what was said out of context and completely ignore the boundaries set by Greg F:

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:28 PM

Another strange assertion

"but hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews" - bobad

"Have you the remotest idea how many Muslims have been killed in hate crimes against their religion? How many Shia have been killed in Jihads by Sunnis? How many Sunni Muslims killed by Shias? Just because they believe a different version of the same fairy story. Or, because it is Muslim killing Muslim, is that OK?

So tell where in the USA or in Europe Sunni and Shia Muslims are killing one another. Nice try at a diversion Gnome but you're not getting away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:49 AM

Oh sorry Gnome forgot to address your last point. If you think that the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland had anything whatsoever to do with religion then you are deluding yourself. But there again I forgot that your lot do tend to believe in out dated and clichéd stereotypes - when it suits your purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM

Just off to Waitrose as they are the only shop round here that sells this new cheese I've discovered. It's French, semi-soft and it's called Vallage. Sublime! See you later!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 09:55 AM

"Then stop telling lies about what I have said."
Then address what I have said - any moron can accuse somebody of being a liar without providing evidence
I have given you your statements - did you make them or have I conjured them up from thin air?
Did you not claim an "implant"?
If your answer is no, I will put it up again
Have you consistently refused to put up examples of anybody else doing so?
If so, either put them up again or at least link us to them
No response and you are lying.
Did you not put up thousand year old shite about child marriage to prove Muslims were inclined to paedophilia?
My response will be as before
Did you not claim that the Jewish members of Parliament reported the antisemitism to Corbyn yet did not take it further because of their loyalty to the party?
Your antisemitsm started when you accused me and other critics of the Israeli regime of being antisemitic for our criticism - that is against the last item in the then accepted definition - Israel has since made nonsense of any definition by declaring openly that CRITICISM OF ISRAEL IS ANTISEMITIC
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 10:04 AM

If you think that the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland had anything whatsoever to do with religion then you are deluding yourself.

And yet you say that antisemitism or the situation in the middle east has something to do with religion?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 10:05 AM

"And French schools but only Jewish ones.
Deny that?"
You deliberately missed out that the perpetrator of the attacks also killed Muslims - deny that?
Those attacks were randomly carried out by a nutter - not antisemitic - unless you consider Muslim soldiers Semites
More distortion and lies Keith - you seem to have no limits to the depths you plunge?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 10:08 AM

Dave the Gnome - 15 Mar 17 - 07:47 AM

Yeahhh - Captain Pugwash. I have a perfect contender for that role. We just need to decide who is Seaman Staines and Roger the cabin boy now...

I forgot that your lot do tend to believe in out dated and clichéd stereotypes - when it suits your purposes. Your belief in falsehoods, myths and misrepresentations is truly heartening.

Bit of info for you Gnome about Captain Pugwash

Seaman Staines?? - No such character ever existed
Roger the cabin boy?? - The cabin boy's name was Tom.

Oh and no Master Bates either.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 10:19 AM

Gnome the connection between "the Troubles" and the situation in the middle-east is what?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 10:20 AM

Funnily enough Teribus, I did know that. Surprised that you did though considering that you do not believe in dealing in trivia. There may be hope for you yet!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:00 AM

the connection between "the Troubles" and the situation in the middle-east is what?

The middle east being 500 years behind in terms of tolerance is the connection that I think was mentioned by either you or poobad. Not sure which, you all sound the same.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:12 AM

Just taken a drive round the coast and then back across the Bog Road, stunningly beautiful, gorse abounds in an array of shades of colour from vivid yellow to almost golden orange. Hyacinths, white flag Lillies and Daffodils of every hue, waves breaking along the shoreline.

On Friday in my local after the St Patricks Day Parade there are three gigs starting at 4 this the afternoon , then Ireland V England rugby on Saturday and on Saturday night out to a mates pub for a very late session, we'll probably still be playing at 3 in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:16 AM

you all sound the same.

That would be because facts is facts and truth is truth - something you and your pack are unable to see through the blinders of your ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:26 AM

Someday Dave, you may develop the wit to answer a simple and direct question. Teribus asked what is the connection between NI and the situation in the Middle East and you had not the balls to answer the man. I'm sure you know bloody well there is no connection but you always prefer obfuscation...don't you?

Classic Passive Aggressive troll!......the very worst variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:38 AM

I did answer it. Someone claimed tolerance was 500 years behind in the middle east. I used the troubles as an example of how wrong they were. Seemples.

You have made that claim before and always failed to provide any substance to the claim. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. If you have any issues with my posts you have a number of options

1. Mention them in thread so I can laugh at you
2. Complain to the moderation team so they can laugh at you
3. Just be yourself so we can all laugh at you.

Any will do.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:55 AM

Your problem is cowardice Dave....It is patently obvious to anyone who studies the issues that the Troubles in Northern Ireland have absolutely no connection to the factional slaughter amongst different branches of Islam.
You know you are in the wrong but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

I think it's time for you to waffle a bit about nature?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

Your ignorance of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly astonishing.

Could I suggest you take a trip to Derry, at one end of the town the kerb stones are painted Green, White and Gold the other end Red, White and Blue.

Sectarianism is still rife, fostered in some part by both catholic priest and protestant vicars alike.

None so blind as they that will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:33 PM

"Gnome the connection between "the Troubles" and the situation in the middle-east is what?"
Only that in both cases, politicians have used religious differences to divide groups and communities to offset attention to heir own activities.
The similarities of how the Unionists held power in the north and how Assad managed to turn a protest for an end to repression into a civil war are uncanny.
That can be repeated and an example wherever an established church has influence beyond its religion.
Nothing unfathomable about that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:48 PM

Well I'm back from the cheese-buying mission! Success! I have mucho Vallage! Hey, did you hear that? Three languages in a four-word sentence - "I have mucho Vallage!" Whaddam I like! Cor, and I used an eight-quid money-off voucher AND GOT ANOTHER EIGHT-QUID MONEY-OFF VOUCHER!!!   And while I've been gone we've been called blind ideologues and strangers to the truth by a bloke who secretly and dishonestly posted as two people at once! You couldn't make it up! Teribus has gone all po-faced at the mention of a cabin boy and akenaton - AKENATON fer chrissake - has accused Dave of being sans wit and sans cojones! What jollity we are enduring here! Let's all go ride bikes! 🚴🏻‍♀️🚴🏿🚵‍♀️🚵🏿🛴🚲🏍🛵

I'm making an avocado dip for tonight to go with crudités. Not crudity, mind, as I have to wait for Whit Friday for that! Geddit? Nod nod, wink wink!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:49 PM

Jim,
Did you not claim an "implant"?If your answer is no, I will put it up again

No. I said that I believed the people who said that culture was to blame. I made no claims and admitted having no knowledge of it.

Have you consistently refused to put up examples of anybody else doing so?

No. At the time I quoted 5 people with intimate knowledge saying culture was to blame.

Did you not put up thousand year old shite about child marriage to prove Muslims were inclined to paedophilia?
My response will be as before

No. I made a factual statement relevant to the discussion.
I actually repeatedly refuted the suggestion that religion was an issue. Deny that Jim?

Did you not claim that the Jewish members of Parliament reported the antisemitism to Corbyn yet did not take it further

Yes, as did those complaining of misogyny and homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:54 PM


Could I suggest you take a trip to Derry, at one end of the town the kerb stones are painted Green, White and Gold the other end Red, White and Blue.

Those colours have political not religious significance.
The sectarian divide is the political one of NI being part of Ireland or UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 01:16 PM

Your problem is cowardice Dave

Your problem, ake, is that you have not got a clue what you are talking about on any level. For example...

You know you are in the wrong but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

How is that, in any way shape or form, related to cowardice. Or are you going to use your usual "quotes" around a word that has a different meaning to you that to the rest of the world?

As to waffling, yes, it is about time for something more pleasant that trying to communicate with someone who obviously has no intention of reciprocating. (Big word I know - Look it up or make something up as usual. :-) )

And Keith, I will make the same point to you as I did to Teribus. The troubles in northern Ireland were political under the guise of being religious. So is the power struggle in the middle East.

Now, waffle time. I am not fond of waffles but whenever we visit Whitby I always make sure I get something from The Whitby Waffler. Something about fried sugar and seaside that gels.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 01:46 PM

"Those colours have political not religious significance."
Religion has been a ploy for keeping the state divided ever since it was declared thet the six counties would be a Protestant State
"No surrender to Papism has been a rallying cry since independence.
"Those colours have political not religious significance."
What an unbelieveably STUPID statement
You continue to lie - you have had every opportunity to produce your invisible army
Each time you claim to hav =e dione I will ask you to link us to it.
PLEASE LINK US TO IT NOW KEITH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 02:42 PM

Jim, the opening two sentences of your linked article,
"Segregation in Northern Ireland is a long-running issue in the political and social history of Northern Ireland. The segregation involves Northern Ireland's two main voting blocs – Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant)."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 02:43 PM

Dave,
So is the power struggle in the middle East.

We are discussing anti-Semitism in the West!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 02:53 PM

...amongst other things :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 03:30 PM

Keith likes to set the agenda. His agenda. You're not "discussing" anything, Keith. You're haranguing people with your favourite obsession. Right. Monaco vs Man City on BT Sport in a minute, with avocado dip, crudités and Vallage cheese washed down with Morrisons' Nero d'Avola. See you later!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 04:03 PM

"Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant).""
And both of those represent he two religions
Stop taking things about of context again
The Unionists declared a Protestant State and the Catholics became second rate citizens - inferior voting rights and propertty ownership was the meing cause of contention.
The Troubles started when Catholics demanded equal rights
For Christ#s sake Keith - http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/the-men-of-no-popery-the-origins-of-the-orange-order/
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 04:12 PM

I know, Steve, I know.

I have decided that a couple of weeks off the beer will do no harm and I am getting to play the accordion more. Trouble is my music room is also the study with the computer so I keep getting distracted by nonsense on here. Having a go at Lads a' Buncham / Young Collins on the Morris On album here but too fast for me. I reckon the dancers would be pretty knackered too.

Wonder if Morrisons have ever used anything from Morris On? Must make some enquiries at work. :-)

Enjoy the match. How do you fancy Leicester's chances in the 1/4 finals?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:00 PM

"I have decided that a couple of weeks off the beer will do no harm and I am getting to play the accordion...."

Christ, Dave, what a terrible sentence...😱


😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:04 PM

Well, I have punished my liver enough. It is the turn of my ears now:-)

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 05:34 AM

Jim,
We were not discussing Israel or Irish history.
"Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant).""
And both of those represent he two religions

No they do not.

The Unionists declared a Protestant State and the Catholics became second rate citizens - inferior voting rights and propertty ownership was the meing cause of contention.

Not true.
Start a new thread and I explain it all to you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 05:58 AM

Returning to the issue of anti-Semitic hate crime in the West, Bobad was right and you were all proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 06:11 AM

So, just what was everyone proved wrong about, Keith? Links please

What about City last night, Steve? Can't say I follow any team in particular but City is the closest. Glad I didn't watch it. Just Leicester left to carry the torch now. Good job the little Englanders on here don't get involved in that. I can imagine the invective against all those furriners taking over our sport...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM

Dave,
So, just what was everyone proved wrong about, Keith?

You were wrong to challenge Bobad's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 07:08 AM

Going from your last three posts, Keith, it appears that you (a) wish to have total control over what we talk about, (b) have adopted an intriguingly-new style of "debate" that involves your saying absolutely nothing except "you're wrong." Very novel!

I didn't get to watch the flippin' match after all as my sis facetimed me 30 seconds after kickoff! She's worth it though. Then I had to chop up all the veg for my crudités. My avocado dip was a sensational success. You'll be getting the recipe later. Looks like City lost courage last night. Better not do schadenfreude as my cousin has a City season ticket...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 07:35 AM

You were wrong to challenge Bobad's statement.

Did I challenge his statement in any way that was wrong? I am pretty sure I just asked some pertinent questions. So what has everyone been proved wrong about Keith?

I don't think you missed much apart from a humiliating defeat, Steve, from what I gather. Sorry I can't provide any links to that so I suppose it could be an unsubstantiated allegation but, then again, I have been told I am shit and have no morals :-) Maybe I should just admit defeat seeing as I have no idea what the rules are

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 08:29 AM

Always good to admit that you lose before Keith tells you that you lose, Dave!

________________________________________________________________

AVOCADO DIP A LA SHAW

A generous amount of dip for two or even three people:

Two decidedly ripe but not blackened or stringy avocados (Morrisons, Lidl and M&S unreliable, Sainsbury's and Waitrose haven't let me down)

Juice of 3/4 of a fresh lime

Half a small green chilli, not a very hot one, chopped very finely

Some chopped fresh parsley

Salt (a fair bit, more than I expected I needed)

Six cherry tomatoes, best you can get (you can't get good ones in Morrisons - sorry, Dave!), finely diced

Scoop out the avocados into a dish and mush up the flesh with a fork, as rough or smooth as you like, but the texture is paramount - you don't want it like those abject little pots of guacamole you buy in supermarkets. Then just chuck in all the other ingredients and mix in. I chilled mine for an hour or two with a bit of cling film on the surface to avoid oxidation.

I used the parsley in place of coriander as Mrs Steve doesn't like the latter, and it worked a treat. A lot of recipes call for chopped onion but my instincts persuaded me to leave it out.

We LOVED it! 🥑 🥑 🥑

And this is 100% on-topic as making it was a "Labour" of love and we will have it at our next "Party!"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:18 AM

Did I challenge his statement in any way that was wrong?

It is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:20 AM

So, give me an example of what was wrong. Or, as Steve says, have you just retreated into "you're wrong' mode? In which case. You're wrong.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:23 AM

I said it is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:36 AM

"We were not discussing Israel or Irish history.
"Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant).""
And both of those represent he two religions"
Will you sto attemptiong to censor this thread because it is not going your way Keith
Thwe title of the thread is UK LaBOUR PARTY DISCUSSION PART II - WHAT THE **** has "Returning to the issue of anti-Semitic hate crime in the West" got to do with that?
That is certainly nothing to do with the thread topic _ Israeli interference has got relevance
Letr me once again let me rermind you - you have no authority of this forum - by most decent contributors you are treated with contempt for your dishonesty, you racist extremism and your clumsy attempts to manipulate information and - in this case, democratic discussion.
Are you sure you're not on Trump's payroll!!
If you attempt to interfere with what I write again shall attempt to have you stopped
WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TELLING US WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DISCUSS
You were quite happy to comment on Ireland until your idiocy got you in trouble again.
Of course the Irish Question is a religious one
How could a six county Protestant State that has repressed the Catholic Minority for half a century be other than religiously influenced?

This summing up from the BBC gives a reasionablte background to the religious suppression of the rights of Catholics in the Six Counties which led to the Troubles.
If you have trouble understanding it I'll throw in a few illustrations and put in a glossary of the big words.
I'd
recommend a few books but I know from your whineing about long posts, that your attention span doesn't go beyond sound-bite size.
Jim Carroll

Background
In 1963, the prime minister of Northern Ireland, Viscount Brookeborough, stepped down after 20 years in office.
His extraordinarily long tenure was a product of the Ulster Unionist domination of politics in the north since partition in 1921.
'There was little indication in 1963 of the turmoil that was about to engulf Northern Ireland.'
By contrast, the Catholic minority had been politically marginalised. This was largely a product of Northern Ireland's two-thirds Protestant majority, but was exacerbated by the drawing of local government electoral boundaries to favour unionist candidates, even in predominantly Catholic areas like Derry.
Additionally, the right to vote in local government elections was restricted to ratepayers - again favouring Protestants - with those holding or renting properties in more than one ward receiving more than one vote, up to a maximum of six.
This bias was preserved by unequal allocation of council houses to Protestant families. Catholic areas also received less government investment than their Protestant neighbours.
Police harassment, exclusion from public service appointments and other forms of discrimination were factors of daily life, and the refusal of Catholic political representatives in parliament to recognise partition only increased the community's sense of alienation.
But there had been improvements. Post-war Britain's new Labour government had introduced the Welfare State to the north, and it was implemented with few, if any, concessions to old sectarian divisions.
As a result, Catholic children in the 1950s could reap the benefits of further and higher education for the first time. It would, in time, expose them to a world of new ideas and create a generation unwilling to tolerate the status quo.
But for now, anti-partition forces had been neutralised and the unionists were firmly in control. There was little indication in 1963 of the turmoil that was about to engulf Northern Ireland"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:41 AM

Steve and Jim,
you (a) wish to have total control over what we talk about,

Sadly I have no control over what you talk about, but I will resist being drawn in to yet another discussion on Irish history or Israel, unless you reopen one of the many existing threads or start a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:11 AM

I said it is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

It is OK to challenge anything and it was quite clear that I was challenging something but that is dishonest?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Glad there are some more sensible discussions going on here. The avocado dip sounds great. Never tried it before so I may try it out this weekend. I am not going to get my evening meal until late so just had a snack of the co-ops edamame beans in soy sauce. They were very nice but I could not eat any more than the snack pot they come in.

DtG

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:21 AM

"Sadly I have no control over what you talk about,"
What do you mean "sadly" - do you mean you wish you7 had, you nasty little Stalinist?European antisemitism has sweet fuck all to do with The Larbour party, but you are quite keen to talk about that.
You and you fick mate weer quite happy to discuss Ireland until your ignorance (and sectarianism) dropped you in a hole, than you cried "foul"
Stop attempting to control discussions, you little fascist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:29 AM

Dave,
It is OK to challenge anything and it was quite clear that I was challenging something but that is dishonest?

Read it slowly this time Dave.
I said it is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:52 AM

"Read it slowly this time Dave."
Stop talking down to people Keith - you're not good enough and we already have two of them.
And with your record, don't call anybody dishonest
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 11:07 AM

I can read it as slowly as you like Keith. It still doesn't make sense to me and just what is it I am supposed to have denied? Challenging his statement? I fully admit I challenged his statement and you have confirmed that there is nothing wrong with challenging anything.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

I feel I am entering some sort of twilight zone...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

As the subject of recism and bigotry seems to be OK with Keith, with his permission, of course, perhaps this articcle from todat's Irish Times might be acceptable
What do people think - does it pass the censor's blue pencil, or aren't there enough "decent countries in the U.N.?
Jim Carroll

Middle East
ISRAEL IMPOSES 'APARTHEID REGIME' ON PALESTINIANS, SAYS UN
A UN agency published a report yesterday accusing Israel of imposing an "apartheid regime" of racial discrimination on the Palestinian people, and said it was the first time a UN body had clearly made the charge.
Israel's foreign ministry spokesman likened the report, publish ed by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), to DerStiirmer-a Nazi propaganda publication that was strongly anti-Semitic.
The report concluded that "Israel has established an apartheid regime that domi¬nates the Palestinian people as a whole". The accusation is fiercely rejected by Israel.
ESCWA executive secretary Rima Khalaf said the report "clearly and frankly concludes that Israel is a racist state that has established an apartheid system".
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters the report was published without any prior consultation with the UN secretariat. "The report as it stands does not reflect the views of the secre¬tary-general." –
(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 01:23 PM

Dave,
I wrote, "You were wrong to challenge Bobad's statement." because it was proved correct and your "pertinent questions" all dealt with.

When you said, "Did I challenge his statement in any way that was wrong?" I took that as a denial that you had challenged.

Others have commented on how confusing your posts can be.
As you say, different language.

Anyway, sorted out now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

Jim, from your cut and paste,
publish ed by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA),

Who are ESCWA?
"ESCWA comprises 18 Arab states"

So no bias there then!

"The United States, an ally of Israel, said it was outraged by the report.
"The United Nations secretariat was right to distance itself from this report, but it must go further and withdraw the report altogether," the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said in a statement.
The Israeli ministry spokesman, Emmanuel Nahshonâ€쳌, commenting on Twitter, also noted the report had not been endorsed by the UN secretary-general.
"The attempt to smear and falsely label the only true democracy in the Middle East by creating a false analogy is despicable and constitutes a blatant lie," Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon said in a statement."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-israel-report-apartheid-palestinians-gaza-a7632336.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 01:59 PM

Who are ESCWA?

Eighteen anti-Semitic Arab states led by Israel hater and 9/11 conspiracy theory espouser extraordinaire Richard Falk.

Eeven the Secretary General of the UN distanced himself from the report.

Good catch Carroll......lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 02:15 PM

"UNESCP
Just because a bunch of Israeli Nazis accuse a report of being bu Nazis doesn't make it so.
Sort of like Bobad and his "Jew Hater"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 02:34 PM

What you pair of Arab Haters extremists appear to be saying is that Arabs have no right to comment on what is happening to their fellow Arabs
Now why am I not surprised?
The report was written by Jewish RICHARD FALK
Is he a Nazi too, or is he just a "Self Hating Jew"?
What a shower of racist shit you pare
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM

THIS REPORT SAYS NOTHING NEW, OF COURSE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:40 PM

Richard Falk compares Israel to the Nazis - he is an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:41 PM

I really have no idea how that question could be misinterpreted as a denial of anything by anyone but you, Keith. Still, as you say it is now sorted. Apology for calling it dishonest accepted. Oh, hang on... :-(

At least you seem to have no interest in the important stuff. That means we can discuss sensible subjects without having to use linguistic gymnastics anyway:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:44 PM

Carroll, as an Anti-Semite your opinions on Israel have no credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 04:47 PM

Did I tell you about the long-forgotten boneless smoked loin of pork I found when de-icing my freezer that had been in there buried in snow since September 2013? Bloody delicious! "Freeze on day of purchase and consume within one month" my arse! We had it just now with Nigella's cheat version of dauphinoise and purple sprouting from the garden. A gastronomic triumph! AND there's enough left over for a butty! AND I managed to persuade Mrs Steve to let me open a bottle even though it's Thursday! Only happy posts from me tonight, ladies, gents, fellow pack members and unreconstructed bigots!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 05:01 PM

I went to the gym after work hence the earlier snack and late tea. Just had some noodles with left over polish smoked ham, celery, peppers, olives and West Indian hot sauce. Washed down with a cup of tea. Very nice too. Of to finish off Pratchetts 'Wyrd Sisters' soon. Got the first 16 or so books over Christmas and Birthday so catching up on all of them and thoroughly enjoying that too. Very good for a laugh. Not quite as laughable as the shenanigans in Westminster but let's not speak of politics and spoil a perfectly civil discussion :-D

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 06:52 PM

Eyup, flippin' 'eck! Just seen Mount Etna on the news blowing its top! People being bombarded by lumps of red-hot rock! Thing is, just 21 months ago I was standing in that self-same spot!!! Shit! Etna was fuming in a good-tempered kind of way when we were up it, but we lamented the lack of a real good show. But this is a bit much! Been up Vesuvius (twice), Mount Teide on Tenerife, Vulcano in be Aeolian islands, on one of which Il Postino was filmed (me favourite), and we spent a couple of smelly, exciting hours in the crater at La Solfatara at Pozzuoli, near Naples. Also had a boat trip round Stromboli (which is utterly beautiful) and had a couple hours in the town there. Full of tourist shops selling lumps of volcano fashioned into all sorts of cute objects, but who cares? I LOVE volcanoes!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 06:57 PM

U.N. chief Antonió Guterres rejected a report published by ECSWA, a Beirut-based agency of the world body— ECSWA—comprised entirely of 18 Arab states, which accuses Israel of "apartheid."

The report's chief author is Richard Falk, a former U.N. official who was condemned repeatedly by the UK and other governments for antisemitism.

In 2011, Falk was also denounced by his own boss, former U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, for espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories which accused the U.S. government, instead of Al Qaeda, of perpetrating the 9/11 terror attacks.

The new report, said Guterres' spokesman, "does not reflect the views of the Secretary‑General."

UN Watch

Yep, Richard Falk, champion of nut jobs, conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites everywhere. Carroll is in good company.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 07:25 PM

From wiki:

A snipe is any of about 25 wading bird species in three genera in the family Scolopacidae. They are characterized by a very long, slender bill and crypsis, or camouflage, plumage. The Gallinago snipes have a nearly worldwide distribution, the Lymnocryptes snipe is restricted to Asia and Europe and the Coenocorypha snipes are found only in the Outlying Islands of New Zealand. The three species of painted snipe are not closely related to the typical snipes, and are placed in their own family, the Rostratulidae. There is also a different species of snipe, found only on the Mudcat website. This species, uniquely, displays phenotypic plasticity in that it exists not only in its normal manifestation (known as "bobad"), which lives up perfectly to its name in that it spends its whole existence just "sniping," but also as a disguised entity which effects to be a different species in order to indulge in deception (as distinct from camouflage) but which is in fact identical to "bobad." Fortunately, it has been successfully identified as a mere bottom-feeder with no real role in its ecosystem, and is well on its way to extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 07:53 PM

From Jim Carroll
"What you pair of Arab Haters extremists appear to be saying is that Arabs have no right to comment on what is happening to their fellow Arabs
Now why am I not surprised?
The report was written by Jewish RICHARD FALK
Is he a Nazi too, or is he just a "Self Hating Jew"?
What a shower of racist shit you pare"
Jim Carroll"

2...""Sadly I have no control over what you talk about,"
What do you mean "sadly" - do you mean you wish you7 had, you nasty little Stalinist?European antisemitism has sweet fuck all to do with The Larbour party, but you are quite keen to talk about that.
You and you fick mate weer quite happy to discuss Ireland until your ignorance (and sectarianism) dropped you in a hole, than you cried "foul"
Stop attempting to control discussions, you little fascist
Jim Carroll"

Going by these two recent "contributions" from Jim, I fear you are correct Bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 08:01 PM

Best to come here without fear! Most of the people who come here who would like us to "fear" them are actually laughing stocks! You included! Nothing personal, Rob Roy! Och the bleedin' noo!   😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

"Going by these two recent "contributions" from Jim, I fear you are correct Bobad."
I take it you have become one of the Trolls fan club
I don't suppose you would like to put up an argument to what I produced
No?
Thought not Not you style.!!
It seems everybody who recognises Israel's criminal behaviour is an antisemite
Just as some people who are happy to wallow in their Islamophobia are happy to see the ethnic cleansing of Arabs and are incapable of recognising the fact that the world has seen it before
Bet the Wilders result was a real let-down for you Ake
Never mind - there's always hope in LePen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:18 PM

What Falk actually said about 9/11 which was deliberately misreported by the extremist press
Others who questioned the handling of 9/11 can be found HERE
Jim Carroll

WHY THE FUSS? THE CALL TO ARMS AGAINST UN RAPPORTEUR RICHARD FALK FOR ALLUDING TO GAPS IN THE 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY
A former Princeton international law professor has been condemned by the UN Secretary General and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for alluding to "an apparent cover-up" of the events of September 11th, 2001.
On January 11, 2011, UN Special Envoy to Palestine Richard Falk posted on his personal blog an article entitled "Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance."
Dr. Falk made a tangential point in his blog-post that governments too often abuse their authority by treating "awkward knowledge as a matter of state secrets".
To illustrate the point, he referred to gaps and contradictions in the official account of the 9/11 attacks, which have been documented in the scholarly works of Dr. David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology.
"What seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred," wrote Falk.
On January 20th, executive director Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, a European NGO, called upon UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the remarks made by Falk, and to fire him, claiming that Falk had "endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists."
On January 24th, in a reply to Hillel Neuer, Vijay Nambiar, Ban Ki-moon's Chief of Staff, responded that the Secretary-General "condemns these remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous — and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack."
The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, called for Falk's removal, stating that "Mr. Falk's comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms."
Surely, in light of what Falk actually said, these indignant cries on behalf of the victims seem more than a little apoplectic.
If Falk's suggestions were so "preposterous" and "offensive", they might have been dismissed as the ravings of a madman.
So why did officials bring out their cannons to shoot at a sparrow?
Well, turning to the work of Professor Griffin we find that there were 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, though Falk did not, in his brief remarks, provide details.
A search of the Internet reveals 12 professional organizations calling for a new investigation, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
In August, 2005, the New York Times printed the oral testimonies of 118 firefighters and emergency workers who reported stunning, graphic evidence of enormous explosions, including mysterious blasts in the deep sub-basements of the buildings long before the towers fell.
More recently, a nine-author peer-reviewed study, which showed that the World Trade Center dust appeared to contain residue of explosive material (nanothermite), made headlines for the first week of February 2010 in major Danish newspapers.
This news never reached the North American media.
A December 2010 poll by the prestigious Emnid Institute showed that 89.5% of Germans doubt the US official story about the September 11th attacks.
The 9/11 commissioners themselves, in a 2008 op-ed piece to the New York Times, bemoaned the withholding of witness evidence to the 9/11 Commission by the CIA: "What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."
Perhaps this sparrow is worth a cannon or two.
In other words, was Falk attacked so strongly to try to make people fear suggesting in public even the possibility that the official story is problematic?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 03:53 AM

Jim, my point was that your posts are becoming more and more incoherent.
Screaming and shouting insults does not help your cause.

There is no reason why this issue cannot be discussed without "losing the heid".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 04:50 AM

"Jim, my point was that your posts are becoming more and more incoherent"
If they are, your failure to respond with statements of your own which contradict what I have put up, or at the very least, have the good manners to point out what you don't understand, otherwise your hit-and-run interventions in this discussion are no more than trollish spoilers without the courage to back up what you are criticising.
You do this all the time Ake - you pronounce your support fotr the most ourageously right wing causes and, when challenged, you refuse to offer any substantial argument whatever, using as a feeble excuse that you will not respond to being insulted
Nobody is asking you to - you are being asked to put up an argument for your beliefs - the insulting comes when you refuse to do so
Put your money where your mouth is.
Now - you have masses of information on the charges laid against Israel - all backed up by previous evidence going back years, showing that Israel is in the process of ethnically cleansing the area of Palestinians
These charges have been made by Israeli Jews as well as respectable Human Rights Groups.
You have claimed in te past that you have never taken sides ofver Israel, yet here you8 are
What is it I have put up that is incoherent, or what is difficult for you to understand?
Otherwise, stop making feeble accusations without the courage to substantiate them.
Any moron can respond to argument with insult - let's see how you go here!
I'll take your refusal to respond as confirmation that you have no case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 05:06 AM

It seems everybody who recognises Israel's criminal behaviour is an anti-Semite

In terms of nation states, that does seem to be true.
Do Scandinavian states "recognise Israel's criminal behaviour?"
No they do not.
EU states?
No.
USA or Canada?
No.
Australia or New Zealand?
No.
India?
No.

What do the regimes that do have in common?
They are nasty, undemocratic regimes with human rights records far worse than Israel's.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 05:08 AM

Well, I suppose it has as much to do with the UK Labour Party as do wild flowers, beautiful scenery and good food. Not as interesting though.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 05:27 AM

I listed all the liberal democracies Jim.
Who is on your list?
Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, non-democratic Arab states (i.e. all of them), ......

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

"I listed all the liberal democracies Jim."
My list includes virtually every civil rights and ant-war crime organisation in the world including those of those "decent countries" on your list
They have a word for people who prefer to take the word of the establishment over that of the voices of the groups who protect our rights and freedoms from abuses by the various establishments.
We know where you stand on that one.
Even if we didn't have them, we have the evidence of the daily reports we were getting out of Gaza - the chemicals and anti personel weapons, the hospitals being bombed with patients in them, the mass destruction and the massacres of civilians, the Israeli death squads mopping up the survivors
We've seen film of Palestinians being driven out of their homes because the settlers fancied living there
We've had reports of Bedouins being driven onto toxic sites and having their farms sprayed with chemicals
There is no dispute about what is happening to the Palestinian people - we've seen it
Only a fanatical sadist could possibly defend what is happeing with the silence of politicians
WHERE IS THE ACTUAL SUPPORT FROM THESE "DECENT COUNTRIES"AND IF IT ISN'T FORTHCOMING, WHY NOT? - YOU CAN HARDLY CLAIM THAT ISRAEL DOESN'T NEED IT
Even OBAMA'S America decided not to veto in favour of Israel - now it has a fascist President it has reversed that decision
That says everything that needs to be said.
The silence of politicians is no defence
Pathetic
SWEDEN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:16 AM

Never mind all that. As it's St Patrick's Day, Mrs Steve's dug out a couple of ould Oirish songs to play at Bude Memory Cafe this afternoon. You probably won't approve, Jim, but one of 'em is Val Doonican singing Paddy McGinty's Goat. Haven't heard it for yonks, but it's surprisingly jolly and has a good jig in it!

The others she's using are M**ly M***ne and D***y B*y (what else!). Managed to persuade her not to play anything sung by Daniel O'Donnell, so that's something at least!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM

I'll play Planxty Irwin at Morris Dance practice. That should make a bugger of any Cotswold jigs...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:54 AM

As it's more of a waltz, you're not wrong there, Dave! You could always try the Paddy McGinty's Goat tune. I dare you!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:23 AM

NORWAY
DENMARK
FRANCE
BELGIUMSWITZERLAND
BRITAIN
BRITAIN PROFITS FROM GAZA

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

U.N.
U.N. AGAIN

Want any more evidence Keith
Where's yours?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:41 AM

One at a time Jim.
I have just used your Sweden link.
"Press TV has interviewed Anthony Hall, professor of globalization at Lethbridge University,"
Not much to do with Sweden then!
Press TV is an Iranian channel, so not much objectivity either!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:54 AM

You might as well say that about any source at all, Keith. Have you got a particular thing about Iranian sources? Or Al Jazeera maybe? Do apprise us as to how you assess objectivity. Not on racial grounds, surely? How about the Mail? The Telegraph? The Jewish Chronicle? I'd say that your total lack of objectivity in these discussions speaks volumes about the weakness of your assessing skills, not to speak of your excellent skills when it comes to biased selectivity.

Bit nippy today in the breeze. Thinking of patching a hole in my gravel drive. May just think about it for another hour or three before I get started....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM

Press TV = propaganda mouthpiece of anti-Semitic Iranian regime.

Al Jazeera = propaganda mouthpiece of anti-Semitic government of Qatar.

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

Your Norway link is to a very pro-Israel piece.
Title, "Another Year of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism in Norway"

Sadly it is 8 years old so out of date.

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

Well, boobs, a quick Google betrays the fact that your remark about al Jazeera is not exactly your original thought (I've caught you doing that before 😂). In fact, Al Jazeera is nothing of the sort, as anyone who watches any of their broadcasts (me, for example, when Spooks repeats are not on late at night) can attest. Don't let your blind ideology bite!

That hole in my drive isn't going to patch itself...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:33 AM

Steve, from Wiki
"An example(of anti-Semitism) cited from earlier years was a report in Al Jazeera that Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work on the day of the September 11 attacks, which was criticized by an October 2001 editorial in The New York Times. An often-repeated example involves an on-air birthday party organized by Al Jazeera's Beirut bureau chief for a Lebanese militant convicted of killing four Israelis, including a four-year-old girl. Al Jazeera greeted Samir Kuntar, released in a July 2008 prisoner swap, as a hero. A more recent example given by the article is the weekly show "Sharia and Life" by Yusuf Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric who, according to a February 2011 article in The Atlantic, "argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned."[7][8]"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:50 AM

Jim, your Denmark link is highly critical of the Danish Ambassador who advocated that Israel should be held to different standards than other countries.
Concluding sentences,

"EU still knowingly and purposefully provides substantial direct financial assistance to settlements in occupied territory – in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus, that is. So the EU funds the occupation of an EU member state. Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus in 1974 was condemned by the UN Security Council, and the EU's official policy is that the Turkish occupation is illegitimate, and Turkey must completely withdraw. The EU does not recognize the Turkish government in Northern Cyprus. Nonetheless, the EU maintains an entire separate program to direct funds to Northern Cyprus."[4]
It is a clear example of how the EU discriminates against Israel by demanding higher standards from Israel than it demands from itself. The Danish ambassador's statements ambassador's statements serve as a good example of where Ugly Europe (the UE) and the European Union overlap.
How the Danes greatly embellish their wartime past by not mentioning the Danish mass murders of Jews in Eastern Europe is yet another story."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:50 AM

The first hit that comes up from Google:

A former Al Jazeera America employee has sued the news cabler for wrongful termination, claiming he was fired after complaining about anti-Semitic and sexist behavior by a senior executive.

Matthew Luke filed suit Tuesday in New York Supreme Court, claiming that Al Jazeera America exec Osman Mahmud has expressed anti-Semitic statementsand taken discriminatory actions against female employees. Luke's suit claims that after he complained about Mahmud's behavior to human resources in February, he was fired 10 days later.

Luke had served as AJA's supervisor of media and archive management since May 2013, before the news channel formally launched on what had been Current TV.

The suit seeks $5 million in compensatory damages and another $10 million in punitive damages. Mahmud is named as a defendant along with AJA.

AJA said it would not comment on pending litigation. But in a statement it added: "The company takes these matters seriously and will respond in the appropriate forum. Al Jazeera America's commitment to diversity and inclusion is fundamental to its mission, and is boldly reflected throughout the company: in its staff, its leadership and its programming."

The complaint claims that Mahmud, who was recently promoted to senior VP of broadcast operations and technology, went out of his way to exclude women from key meetings and to replace female employees with men in key roles.

Most explosively, the suit claims that Mahmud made anti-Semitic remarks including the statement "whoever supports Israel should die a fiery death in hell."

The suit also claims that AJA executives exhibited an "anti-American" bias in recent months as key executives recruited for the U.S. operation were replaced with Middle Eastern execs from the parent Al Jazeera org, which is based in Qatar and funded by an offshoot of the state government.

The picture of anti-American activity painted in the complaint is sure to be fodder for AJA critics who have blasted the channel from the start as being connected to terrorist and Islamist fundamentalist orgs in the Middle East. Al Jazeera has long maintained that its goal was to build a credible and objective newsgathering operation in the U.S. as a linchpin of its global news network.

Variety

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:51 AM

You could add 'Delaney's Donkey' to your list, Steve. Anything but Fields of f***ing Athenry (The extra phrasing requires time signature change to 9/8)

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:58 AM

Your "BelgiumSwitzerland" link is over eight years old, and your Britain link just tells us that Britain opposes the settlements. So does every country Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:13 AM

Mohamed Fahmy: NY Times

in 2013, Egypt moved to ban Al Jazeera's Arabic service in the country, known as Mubasher Misr, because it was perceived as a Qatari-sponsored propaganda mouthpiece for the Brotherhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:15 AM

...or maybe even 7/4?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

Yeah, Keith, and the Daily Telegraph, the Mail and Fox News are all paragons!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:20 AM

Eric Nisbet, a communications professor at Ohio State University who has studied Arab media and anti-Americanism, says it's important to distinguish between the English and Arabic channels of Al Jazeera.

The English channel has a very cosmopolitan perspective and is staffed largely by former corespondents from the BBC and U.S. networks, he says.

The Arabic channel, not surprisingly, is aimed squarely at an Arab audience and prides itself on giving voice to a wide range of perspectives from throughout the region.

The result? At times it airs the views of extremists, "sometimes without challenging them as much as they should," Nisbet says. "There are definitely some biases in that they are an Arabic channel for Arab audiences."

And yes, there is anti-Semitism, Nisbet adds. "Unfortunately in Arabic political discourse there is a great deal of anti-Semitism. The conversation there about Israel and American foreign policy is very different from our discourse in the U.S."

Thought Co.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:25 AM

Were supposedly discussing valid sources and boobs comes up with "Variety," a showbiz mag! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:30 AM

Easy to see why Shaw is a fan of Al Jazeera:

Al-Jazeera has failed to remove a barrage of anti-Semitism and even online incitement to violence that followed its investigation into London's Israeli Embassy.

The broadcaster was yesterday alerted by Jewish News to the racist postings that includes conspiracy theories about Israel and 9/11, vile references to the Holocaust and claims Israel controls US and UK politics. The comments – which contravene the broadcaster's own rules – were were among 230 posts under an online article about the six-month sting in which an Israeli Embassy employee was filmed talking about 'taking down' foreign minister Alan Duncan.

One user said the 'British turn to warm up the gas chambers again", while another wrote "a good K yke is a gassed K yke". A further reader added: "And your point, Jew boy? I remember my gran pappy telling me how he used to cut the noses off K ykes before kicking them into the ovens. I love my gran pappy very much."

"Israel knew about 9/11," offered another user of the site. "But Jews own america and have brainwashed America."

There was even an example of incitement to violence in the string. "Kill and burn any Israeli or Israeli supporter along with their families. Any Israeli pig left should be sent back to his/her pig farm in Europe."

Jewish News Online

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:32 AM

Cor, talk about selective! Bobad's selected chunk from his Thought Co link went on to say, just after where he snipped it:

Nisbet hastens to add that the channel also frequently features representatives from the U.S. and Israeli governments, and that it is widely watched in Israel.

Even given the network's problems, Nisbet, like Baum, believes Al Jazeera, at least in its English-speaking incarnation, should be aired more widely on U.S. television.

"We as a country need to know what other people think of us," he says. "If we really want to make informed decisions about foreign policy and about the opportunities and challenges we face overseas, we need to hear that perspective. Al Jazeera provides a very non-American window on the world that we need to be looking through."

Now I wonder why you didn't us about THAT bit, boobs! 😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:45 AM

Im not a "fan" of Al Jazeera. I treat all news outlets with the same degree of scepticism, as I've said here several times. Your piece from the Jewish News Online shows the very worst traits of the kind of tabloidism that I always rail against: it poses as a news item, yet it is full of opinion and polemic. Utterly dishonest and dishonourable journalism. Even the Daily Mail manages to be more subtle than that. It's all very well criticising al Jazeera when that's the sort of thing you come up with in response!


That bloody hole in my drive is staring sullenly at me...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:55 AM

Blimey, Fields of Athenry is such a dirge. He should have stopped after two verses. If not Delaney's Donkey, Dave, how about Saddle The Pony? That would keep the going-upmarket animal theme alive, goat to donkey to pony! Is there a tune name with "thoroughbred" in it? But don't even THINK about "Ride On." Aargh!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM

"My lovely horse" from father Ted would work :-)

'ere. you know I was finishing off reading 'Wyrd Sisters' yesterday? Well, I did and I had fogotten how significant it could be to some of these 'discussions' (Not quotes in an ake sort of way - Just because I am not at all sure they are discussions). The premise in part is that words have a magic all of their own. They can change things for better or worse and in the book someone tries to perform a play to show the witches in a bad light. The plot fails of course and the witches and common sense win through. Shame it doesn't happen like that here :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 02:00 PM

Unfortunately in Arabic political discourse there is a great deal of anti-Semitism.

Unfortunately in Israeli (and lately USA) political discourse there is a great deal of Islamophobia.

Moving right along.......

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 02:09 PM

Keith - you are truely one of the most evilly dishonest people I have ever come across
You have the evidence of the massive series of human rights abuses carried out by the Israelis and you have h
ve denied every single one without fail
I hope you enjoy your inhumanity as much as I have enjoyed exposing it.
Jim Carroll

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

Jim,
You have the evidence of the massive series of human rights abuses carried out by the Israelis and you have h
ve denied every single one without fail

I have denied none. I just exposed the lack of evidence for any of them.

I hope you enjoy your inhumanity as much as I have enjoyed exposing it.

You are yet to expose any such thing. How could you? It is just another of your lies.
If you are not lying, quote one single inhumane post.
Just one will do. Make it the very worst one.
Good luck with that.

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

As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case, and start making up lies about me personally instead.
You do it every time!
You might as well hoist a white flag.

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

We'll have less of that exposing if you don't mind. There was enough trouble calming the old ladies in Blackpool down after the incident on the tower. Luckily they were the same ones that were at the bingo game with missing balls and photocopied cards. They forgot all about missing balls after that sight...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 03:48 PM

There are some people around here with big balls and nothing else!

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

Unfortunately in Israeli (and lately USA) political discourse there is a great deal of Islamophobia.

Statistics do show that Muslims are victims of Islamophobic hate crimes, fortunately for them the statistics also show that these represent but a fraction of all hate crimes directed against people because of their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 04:18 PM

"As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case,"
I've made a case Keith - you are now reduced to dishonesty
You deny the facts and have resorted with stupid stonewalling
I hav long stopped posting for your benefit Keith - you are what you are and as far as I am concerned, the oly thing to do is allow you to underline what you are yourself.
"You might as well hoist a white flag."
You really can't get anywhere wityh someone who adopts a "win at all costs" attitude to debate.
Wo else believes your argument here - I'm sure even Bobad wouldn't lower himself to taking up your stupid argument
Teribus has had the sense to keep away
Aker - well - Ake is like Billy Connolly's policeman = you only have to ask him a question to confuse him.
You are an extremist and in order to win something you have lied and disitoted more than has ever happened on this forum
You have come a long way since you were reprimanded for posting under a fake name
A sad, individual
Jim Carroll

I realise that the opinions od decent working people are not your thing, but this is the call for BDS by the Communication workers here support going out in Ireland at present - perhaps they were "brainwashed to hate Israel as you claimed Irish children were the British

Welcome / Activists / Campaigns / Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions for Israel
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions for Israel

Please note that the CWU's support for the Palestinian-led international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is not an "Anti-Israel" or "Anti-Semitic" position; it is an answer to Palestinian civil society's call for solidarity. Furthermore, our condemnation of Israel's military actions within Gaza does not constitute, in any way, support for any Palestinian political or military faction.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet; the 360km sq. enclave is home to approximately 1.8 million Palestinians. Its borders are closed on all sides, controlled mostly by Israel, excluding a small border in the south which is controlled by Egypt. Israel also controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, leaving no way out for this besieged people, whether in times of incredible violence or in times of relative calm.

1. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

The Siege of Gaza (Israeli Blockade)
Since 2007, Israel has laid siege to the Gaza Strip, blockading the enclave by land, sea and air. The Gaza Strip is now essentially an 'open air prison', with the movement of people and goods severely restricted by the Israeli military. These restrictions are so tight that musical instruments, crayons, canned fruit and fresh meat are among the items banned from entering. This blockade has led to severe hardship and poverty; a situation amounting to collective punishment and which is now considered to be a humanitarian disaster. Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories said: "Such a massive form of collective punishment is a crime against humanity, as well as a gross violation of the prohibition on collective punishment in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Home Demolitions
Since 1967, Israel has demolished more than 38,000 Palestinian homes, aimed at collectively punishing Palestinians or making way for illegal Israeli settlements. This practice has continuously been condemned by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Illegal Settlements
Since 1967, Israel has continued to build illegal settlements in Palestinian territories it occupies, despite constant condemnation by the United Nations, including the United States, Israel's main supporter. Israelis are encouraged, through generous state compensation schemes, to settle in these colonies. The aim of the Israeli state is to increasingly colonise the West Bank thus making a viable Palestinian state impossible. These settlements are linked up by segregated roads, which Palestinians are forbidden from using.

Separation Wall
In April 2002, Israel began constructing an enormous wall around the occupied West Bank, ostensibly to prevent potential suicide bombers entering Israel. As a result, more than 10% of the West Bank has been annexed, with families and neighbourhoods divided by the concrete barrier. Widely known as the 'Apartheid Wall', the structure stands 8 metres (25ft) high and will span more than 700km once completed. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (Advisory Opinion 131) found the wall to be illegal because it vastly encroached upon Palestinian land and recommended Israel dismantle it. Despite the finding, Israel has refused to comply. The Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also spoken out against the wall.

War Crimes
Israel's war crimes have been widely documented by human rights monitors, civil society organisations within Palestine, Israel and the wider international community, and the United Nations. For example, in 2009 an UN-backed mission of inquiry found that Israel committed "serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law, which may amount to crimes against humanity" (Source: Goldstone Report, 2009). Yet Israel is granted impunity as the United States, its closest ally and largest military aid provider, shields it from any decisive action for such crimes and the EU continues trade, research and civil cooperation projects.


                                                                                                            

2. WHY IS THIS APARTHEID?

The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them". The acts which fall within the domain of apartheid include the following: (1) murder; (2) torture; (3) inhuman treatment and arbitrary arrest of members of a racial group; (4) deliberate imposition on a racial group of living conditions calculated to cause it physical destruction; (5) legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; (6) measures that divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate residential areas for racial groups; (7) the prohibition of interracial marriages; and (8) the persecution of persons opposed to apartheid (Source: Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Prof. John Dugard).

The acts prescribed to the crime of apartheid read like a catalogue of Israeli practices and policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, to wit:

(1) Murder

8,900+ Palestinians killed by Israeli military since 2000 (vast majority were civilians);

(2) Torture

At least 72 Palestinians tortured to death in Israeli prisons since 1967;

(3) Arbitrary Arrest

Israel allows for the arbitrary detention of any Palestinian civilian for up to 6 months without trial and detention orders can be extended indefinitely for additional 6-month periods. In practice, however, many have been detained for much longer periods, some up to or over 7 years. There are now roughly 6,000 Palestinians – including at least 200 children, 17 women and 11 elected Palestinian officials – being held in Israeli prisons or detention centres;

(4) Physical Destruction

The Israeli military made precise calculations of the daily calorie needs of Palestinians in 2008 and restricted the type and amount of food allowed to enter Gaza as a form of collective punishment. This action was taken after Hamas won elections and went on to take control of Gaza in 2007, with Israel subsequently deeming the region a 'hostile territory';

(5) Discrimination

The call to recognise Israel as a 'Jewish State' entrenches the policy of preserving institutionalised Jewish privilege in the majority of the Palestine-Israel region, through ethnic separation and exclusion; Israel operates separate legal systems for Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories and within Israel, Palestinian citizens face a raft of legal discrimination;

(6) Separate Residential Areas

Illegal Jewish settlements – connected by segregated roads – in the occupied West Bank have more than doubled since 2000, exceeding 500,000 settlers living on land beyond the pre-1967 borders. This is in contravention of numerous UN Security Council resolutions deeming these settlements illegal and demanding a halt to construction;

(7) Interracial Marriage

There is no civil marriage in Israel, marriages are only allowed on a confessional basis meaning that without conversion people of different religions cannot marry;

(8) Persecution

The persecution of the Palestinian people has been ongoing since 1947. What was recently witnessed in Gaza was only the latest in a long line of Israeli crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

[Top]

                                                                                                            

3. MYTHBUSTER

(1) Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip

14% of Gaza's total land and at least 48% of total arable land are taken up by Israel-imposed buffer zones. While 85% of the maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords is taken up by such buffer zones, reducing fishing areas from twenty nautical miles to three (Source: Boston Globe). Furthermore, Israel controls the population registry for residents of the Gaza Strip, despite withdrawing its ground forces and settlements from the enclave in 2005 (Source: Human Rights Watch).

(2) Hamas doesn't want a ceasefire but Israel does

A Hamas spokesperson said the group wants the "aggression to stop tomorrow, today, or even this minute. But [Israel must] lift the blockade with guarantees and not as a promise for future negotiations". The spokesperson went on to say: "we will not shut the door in the face of any humanitarian ceasefire backed by a real aid programme" (Source: Al Jazeera). Hamas proposed a 10-year end to hostilities in return for its conditions being met by Israel, the day after an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, which had been accepted by Israel but rejected by Hamas (Source: Jerusalem Post, emphasis added). It was also reported that Israel's security cabinet rejected a week-long Gaza ceasefire proposal put forward by US Secretary of State John Kerry "as it stands" (Source: BBC).

(3) Israel doesn't deliberately target civilians

The Guardian newspaper reported that a second [Israeli] shell hit the beach, with those firing apparently adjusting their aim to target fleeing survivors. Journalists standing by the terrace wall shouted: "They are only children" – regarding the murder of four Palestinian boys playing on the beach in July 2014 (Source: The Guardian). The tactics used by the Israeli military in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. A UN Fact Finding Mission concluded from a review of the facts on the ground that it appears to have been precisely what was put into practice (Source: UN Fact Finding Mission on Gaza Conflict, 2009).

(4) Israel is not guilty of war crimes

The Israeli military may have knowingly or recklessly attacked people who were clearly civilians – such as young boys and civilian structures, including a hospital – laws-of-war violations that are indicative of war crimes (Source: Human Rights Watch). Deliberately attacking a civilian home is a war crime, and the overwhelming scale of destruction of civilian homes, in some cases with entire families inside them, points to a distressing pattern of repeated violations of the laws-of-war (Source: Amnesty International).

(5) Hamas uses civilians as 'human shields'

"I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields" (Source: Jeremy Bowen, BBC). It was reported by The Guardian newspaper that it has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay (Source: The Guardian). In 2013 a United Nations human rights body accused the Israeli military of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields (Source: Reuters).

(6) Hamas constantly fires rockets into Israel

The Times of Israel reported that Hamas launched a series of rockets into Israel, the first time in years the group had directly challenged the Israeli state. The Israeli security forces assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier, killing one person and injuring three. Hamas had not fired any rockets into Israel since 'Operation Pillar of Defense' ended in November 2012 (Source: Times of Israel, emphasis added).

(7) Hamas kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers to provoke Israel

It was reported that the Israeli government knew from the beginning that the three Israeli teenagers were dead. It maintained the fiction that it hoped to find them alive as a pretext to dismantle Hamas' West Bank operations. It was clear from the beginning that the kidnappers, from a Hamas-linked Hebron family, acted without the knowledge of Hamas leadership (Source: Jewish Daily Forward).

(8) Israel's blockade is not to blame for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza

Israel confirmed to US Embassy officials on multiple occasions that it intends to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis. Israeli officials have confirmed on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge (Source: US State Department).

(9) The Israeli government wants a two-state solution

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made explicitly clear that he could never countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. Amid the current conflict, he elaborated: "I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan" (Source: Times of Israel).

[Top]

                                                                                                            

4. THE BDS MOVEMENT: BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, SANCTIONS

On the 9th July 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organisations, including trade unions, refugee rights associations, charitable organisations, academics and cultural groups, called for an international movement to impose boycotts, divestment and sanctions on the state of Israel. This nonviolent tactic was inspired by a similar boycott campaign that was used against Apartheid South Africa to isolate the then white supremacist government. Similarly, this boycott campaign is aimed at forcing Israel to guarantee Palestinians their inalienable human rights.

The key demands of the BDS Movement are for Israel to:

(1) End its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantle the Wall

(2) Recognise the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality

(3) Respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194

The BDS Movement has been growing rapidly in recent years, with a number of high-profile individuals lending their support, including Pink Floyd's Roger Waters, renowned scientist Stephen Hawking and Ireland's own Damien Dempsey. In 2009, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions reaffirmed its support for the BDS campaign in response to ongoing Israeli human rights violations.

PUT MY NAME DOWN BROTHER
WHERE DO I SIGN

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 04:30 PM

Judging from the lie in the first few words of the diatribe posted: Since 2007, Israel has laid siege to the Gaza Strip, we can rest assured that the entire piece is nothing but the usual anti-Semitic propaganda and anti-Israel hate speech that is Carroll's stock-in-trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 05:34 PM

"Statistics do show that..." Weasel words.

"...the statistics also show that..." More weasel words.

Before you bite back I suggest you look up "weasel words" on wiki.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:22 PM

Sorry for your butthurt Shaw, I know it's not easy to accept when your ideology gets destroyed by facts but put your man panties on and man up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:26 PM

fortunately for [Muslims] the statistics also show that these represent but a fraction of all hate crimes

I'm sure that comforts the dead victims' families no end, Boo.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 06:45 PM

That's a pretty silly and immature response, boobs. You were using weasel words. Bang to rights. Man up and deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 07:03 PM

Greg, according to your friend Dave, the most anti-Muslim hate crimes being committed today are by Muslims in the Middle East. I would suggest that you have chosen the wrong battlefield in your championing of Islamophobia and instead are practicing knee-jerk whataboutery to the overwhelming prevalence of anti-Semitism in the world today.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 07:08 PM

That's a pretty silly and immature response,

Right Shaw, tell us some more about your flowers, snobby foodism, and the holes in your gravel drive.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 07:53 PM

Even though you can't expect to defeat the absurdity of the world, you must make that attempt. That's morality, that's religion. That's art. That's life.

- Phil Ochs

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

"When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered."

-Robert F. Kennedy, April 5, 1968 murdered by the Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan for his vocal support for Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:26 PM

Phil Ochs would shit on your silly head. You don't deserve to breathe the same air. And I'll tell you about my flowers and the hole in my drive and my grub until the cows come home at times of my choosing. In the meantime, you used weasel words in place of debate. Bang to rights. You seem to think that I'll let that pass if you spout enough obfuscating shit in the meantime. But I won't. Ask Teribus. I have this ability to focus and get the bit between my teeth. You tried to bullshit us with weasel words about what "statistics show." Well we are not that stupid. Yes, "WE!"

Actually, since you mention it, I didn't quite get the hole filled as I met with complications that I won't bore you with, but I need to access a bit of hardcore before I can add the gravel topping. I possess the right materials and am halfway there. All this digging is making my muscles big. That is not intended as a threat. And I'm in a bad mood because I had to ditch my pasta e fagioli tonight due to a batch of borlotti beans that wouldn't soften even after two hours' boiling. Bastards. Bloody Waitrose too. I should have resorted to tinned but it was too late by the time I decided to ditch the project. Had to resort to a jar of pistachio pesto stirred into short pasta with added basil and Parmesan. Bloody good it was, but I hate culinary defeat. More on that later, in the words of Kirsty Wark. As for the flowers, I'll update you tomorrow, my little petal. 😆

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:47 PM

"Robert F. Kennedy, April 5, 1968 murdered by the Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan for his vocal support for Israel."

Any idea why you felt the need to insert "Palestinian" into that sentence? It may strike you as odd, but a very large number of non-Palestinians also dislike politicians in the US who express vocal support for Israel. Would you like us to think that Palestinians are all bloodthirsty murderers at worst or supporters of Sirhan at best? You must have had your reason...

Careful now! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 08:49 PM

Hate those statistics do you Shaw? It's because they show you to be full of shit and your ideology to be as phony as you are. Unmasked for the lying hypocrite you are. 😂😂😂😂😂

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

Er, you didn't give us any statistics! All you said was that " statistics show that..." etc.! So how would I know whether I hate them or not?! Give us the statistics, I'll check 'em out (which is what you're afraid of, of course), then I'll tell you whether I love them or hate them! It's past your bedtime, fella! Try to get someone to read your bedtime book to you, The Adventures Of Spot The Dog perhaps. Oh, hang on - you probably won't be able to follow the plot...

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

Anyway, enough of this entertainment. I must to bed. I have a hole to fill in the morning. In my gravel drive, yer dirty-minded buggers! Duh!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:31 PM

Any idea why you felt the need to insert "Palestinian" into that sentence?

Another inconvenient truth that upsets your prejudiced world view - good, I'll keep them coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 09:56 PM

Nothing inconvenient about knowing the bloke's nationality. Why would there be? The guy who killed his older brother was not a Palestinian. Should we mention that fact every time? The guy who killed Abe - not a Palestinian. The blokes who killed 50 people in London in July 2005 - not Palestinians. The guys who shoot up high schools in America - not Palestinians. The Hungerford and Dunblane killers - not Palestinians. Loads of people who kill other people are not Palestinians. A few are Palestinians, admittedly. John Hinckley Jr, not a Palestinian. Turkish guy who shot the Pope - dodgy one, this - not a Palestinian. Guy who shot Lennon - not a Palestinian. Bali bombers - not Palestinians. So, the question remains: why did you insert "Palestinian" into that sentence? What is that word intended to convey? If nothing, why did you use it? Answer the question! Careful now! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Mar 17 - 10:32 PM

So, facts and inconvenient truths have got the ideologues on the run now. It must be a total bummer when you realize you've been backing the wrong horse all this time. But, hey, it's never too late to admit you're wrong and get back on the right track. Go for it Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:15 AM

Jim,

"As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case,"
I've made a case Keith - you are now reduced to dishonesty
You deny the facts and have resorted with stupid stonewalling

IF YOU ARE NOT LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID, QUOTE ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:19 AM

Steve,
"Statistics do show that..." Weasel words.
"...the statistics also show that..." More weasel words.

As Bobad has actually produced those statistics, he is reminding you of facts, not using "weasel words."
Look it up Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:25 AM

"Israel has laid siege to the Gaza Strip"
Remind us how long the BLOCKADE has been going on Bobad
"Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan "
Wonder where British Fred and Betty West leaves us Brits, or Baruch Kopel Goldstein and Nicolai Bonner leaves the Israelis, or Ted Bundy leaves the Americans
The two countries with the largest number of serial killers are The United states (Gold medal) and Britain (silver medal)
What a sicko line of argument - even for Bobad
Jim Carroll
Forgot to mention the 1,492 civilian men women and children slaughteres by the Israelis in the 2015 invasion of Gaza

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:28 AM

Good morning Jim.
Are you going to quote me saying what you claimed, or do you acknowledge it was just your latest lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM

"IF YOU ARE NOT LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID, QUOTE ME!"
Happy to oblige Keith - just this once
Do Scandinavian states "recognise Israel's criminal behaviour?"
No they do not.
EU states?
No.
USA or Canada?
No.
Australia or New Zealand?
No.
India?
No.
The fact that self serving governments stay silent about war crimes and acts of terror when it is in their interests to do so, as they did about Assed's torture chambers, and America's slaughter off the Vietnamese people - is meaningless shite and it is stonewalling to offer it as a defence of Israel
Is THIS, and the fact that the Saudis are favourite customers for British arms and endorsement of their behavior?
If it isn't, you have no case - why should Britain look favourably on on terrorist regime and not another.
You have the facts - you are incapable if answering them honestly because of your extreme racist bigotry.
Cenre-right, my arse
You are the most extreme extremist on this forum
You have targeted Muslim culture and religion, Irish "brainwashed to hate Britain" children, immigrants and evicted and persecuted travellers with your incessant and obsessive bigotry
I can still remember the "no Dogs, no Irish" signs that were produced and you continued to deny
People like you would be dangerous if you were taken seriously
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 06:04 AM

Did I mention the "no Travellers served here" signs you spent weeks defending, or the three days of rioting in Belfast which you attempted to blame on children, or the violent sectarian marches which you tried to pass of as a pleasant day out?
Don't think I did!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 06:58 AM

I am sure you spotted it, Steve, but "your friend Dave" did not say the most anti-Muslim hate crimes being committed today are by Muslims in the Middle East. I did say that hate crimes were hate crimes regardless of who committed them but poobad and his friends seem to think it is OK if Muslims kill other Muslims.

I went to Morris dance practice last night and managed to squeeze a few tunes on the concertina. Now, there is a crime against humanity. Pity the poor dancers :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM

Keith, we've been all over those curious statistics already. If they show anything at all they show that the problem they are supposed to be demonstrating is almost negligible. Aside from that, if you wish to invoke statistics that you've already used, especially when it was days ago in a long and busy thread, you don't just say "statistics show that...". You say "the statistics that I presented on Xth March show that...". How am I supposed to know which statistics he meant? And he hasn't clarified, despite being challenged. You lose. 🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 08:26 AM

poobad and his friends seem to think it is OK if Muslims kill other Muslims.

Oh,do we Dave? I don't suppose you'd care to provide evidence of that. How about if I said Dave and his friends seem to think it's alright that Jews should be slaughtered by Muslims? Is that the level of discourse that you have sunk to since joining the pack of hyenas? Sad!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 08:41 AM

Tell you what poobad. I will provide evidence of that when you provide evidence that I said "the most anti-Muslim hate crimes being committed today are by Muslims in the Middle East".

Steve - I feel a Wheatcroft moment coming on. You can have 1500 as well if you fancy.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 08:52 AM

Nice cop out there Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:04 AM

You are saying exactly what I stated here Dave, but of course you will try to wriggle out by the usual twisting and dissembling that you have learned so well from your fellow pack members.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 14 Mar 17 - 04:28 PM

Another strange assertion

but hate crimes directed against Muslims are but a fraction of those directed against Jews

Have you the remotest idea how many Muslims have been killed in hate crimes against their religion? How many Shia have been killed in Jihads by Sunnis? How many Sunni Muslims killed by Shias? Just because they believe a different version of the same fairy story. Or, because it is Muslim killing Muslim, is that OK?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:10 AM

No cop out at all. You seem to learning form the master of changing the rules to suit. You misrepresented what I said so I have asked you to provide evidence. What is the matter? Do you not think you can?

Tell you what though. I will make a start if you like. Would you care to look up the statement Up until such a time, if they wish to slaughter one another then they'd best restrict their efforts to their own countries and tell us who made it? If you can interpret whatever I said as "most hate crimes etc." that I am pretty sure we have a case to interpret 'if they wish to slaughter each other' as it is OK for them to do as as long as they keep it local.

Now, would you care to provide evidence of where I said "the most anti-Muslim hate crimes being committed today are by Muslims in the Middle East". In Keith's words, good luck with that.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:13 AM

So, you misrepresented what I said to suit your agenda. What is new in that?

Off to do something better for the afternoon. Was hoping to come back with tales of a glorious spring day in Haworth but it looks like it is going to piss down. May just make something up instead. Looks like that is what most people do.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM

So lies, damn lies and threadbare statistics! Who's doing the wriggling, boobs? 🤠

Missed the chance to do 1500, Dave, as I was in Bude Morrisons. I note that the firm is steadfastly refusing to put Signature Nero d'Avola back down to its five quid offer price. However, I had a e-voucher giving me 5000 Match 'n' More points if I spent forty quid, in effect a free fiver. Therefore, after some mental creative accounting, I decided to buy six bottles at six quid. My bill thereby crept above the forty quid mark and my points are on the way. That's the way to do it! But come on, Dave, 'ave a word about the Nero d'Avola, will you? 🍷🍷🍷

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 12:21 PM

Steve,
they show that the problem they are supposed to be demonstrating is almost negligible.

Not true Steve.
You made the obvious point that hate crime victims are a tiny proportion of the population, but they unequivocally showed that in the West Jews are more likely to be such victims than any other group, exactly as Bobad claimed.

Jim,
How does the post of mine you quoted support your lie, "You have the evidence of the massive series of human rights abuses carried out by the Israelis and you have h
ve denied every single one without fail
I hope you enjoy your inhumanity as much as I have enjoyed exposing it."

Did I mention the "no Travellers served here" signs you spent weeks defending,

If that is not another lie Jim, QUOTE ME DEFENDING THEM!!

or the three days of rioting in Belfast which you attempted to blame on children,

If you are not lying and I said anything untrue, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!,

If I said that about any violent march, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case, and start making up lies about me personally instead.
You do it every time!
You might as well hoist a white flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 12:49 PM

Piss off Keith
All this is old history - I linkyou to what you actually said, you go on offending it
I don't lie - I don't need to
Your racist and sectarian behaviur makes it unnecesary to do so
Your technique of prolonging these arguments if beginning to look like attention seeking
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:03 PM

No wriggling here. I guess he is in the same mold as some others I could mention, Steve. Has his own meaning for everyday words.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or 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."

The rain did keep off in Haworth. Lovely drive over the tops. Could not see much from the car but the daffs are out in force everywhere and some of the trees are blossoming. Definitely springlike.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:04 PM

So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about. Just about four times more likely to be a Jewish victim of a hate crime than to be struck by lightning. Sounds like a pretty safe country in which to be a Jew to me. You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour (the one party that has been honest enough to put the issue in the spotlight) in which there have been a few handfuls of mostly unproven cases out of a membership of six hundred thousand. By highlighting and tirelessly publicising what seem to be minor issues, according to your stats at least, it seems to me that you are trying to portray Jews as perpetual victims, thereby putting them more in harm's way. Of course, it may be that you regard the stats as just the tip of the iceberg. If so, you seriously need better stats.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:09 PM

Ah - what the hell - I can do this and carry on with the desk work.
No Traveller signs.
I explained I had been part of a photographing campaign that lasted for several years, trying to get the practice of putting these signs up
I linked you to one of these photographs which had been part of the notes to a CD of Travellers we had put out
I provided documented evidence from organisations like The Runnymede Trust, who had documented these signs and produced descriptions of court cases
I even described having visited 2 pubs in the Bristol area which were still displaying those notices at the time of out argument
I provided links to a book entitled 'Gypsies' by prominent civil servant, Sir Angus Fraser, which features a chapter of these signs and points out that they were common because Travelers were not protected under the race- discrimination laws.
After all of this, you still denied that they were common and at several stages, became abusive and called me a liar and a bigot.
If this is not defending these signs, I don;t know what is
These are some of the samples of around 90 postings you made on the 'No Travellers site
I have little doubt that, having denied defending these signs, you will now attempt to reopen the argument and claim they were not around as I said they were.
I thinl 90 postings from you are quite enough - don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:16 PM
Jim, you said they were common, I said I had never seen one, and you accused me of lying.
I am no liar, and nor are the others who have never seen one.
You know that they have been illegal here for fourty four years.
Your contention is that the people here are so racist they ignore the law, and the police so racist they allow it.
You are wrong about our people.
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Aug 12 - 03:21 PM
Sorry, illegal for FOURTY SIX YEARS !
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 02:57 AM
Jim Carroll, you were wrong to state that" "No Travellers Served" is a common notice throughout Britain "
It is not
Most of us have never seen one in our lives, and to say that does not make us liars or racists.
Far from being common, they are extraordinarily rare, and probably do not exist any more.
You were wrong to suggest that the British people are so racist they ignore the laws.
You were wrong to suggest that the British police are so racist they allow it.
You were wrong about us.
You were wrong about me.
Thank you.
keith.
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:38 AM
I have never seen one, and most contributors have not.
That means they are not common.
I am challenging nothing else Jim, but you stated they were common and I disagree.
They are not common.
If they exist at all they are extraordinarily rare.
You were wrong.
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 03:40 AM
You are in England now right?
Found any?
Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:29 AM
You said " "No Travellers Served" is a common notice throughout Britain "
I know from my own experience that it is not.
You said "Because a handful of individuals here have not seen them is no proof whatever that they do not exist in the numbers that have been quoted"
I think it is proof.
How many "individuals" accepted that the notice IS common throughout Britain?
Answer NONE.
You were wrong about us, and about me.
(AGAIN!)

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 06:22 AM
"YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF OFFICIALLY RESEARCHED AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE"
Jim, those of us who live in this country do not need your experts to tell us what it is like.
We live here.
I rate the objectivity of a cross section of Mudcatters way above that of your agenda ridden spokespersons trying to justify their pay-packets.
"No Travellers Served" is NOT a common notice throughout Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 01:52 PM
There are lots of pitches around Hertford.
Just no signs.
Your Glasgow friend said they WERE common once.
None now then.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 05:19 PM
Are you implying that the poster is lying and not that the notice was taken down so as not to spoil the photograph and frighten the horses?
Yes I am.
He is a troll.
There is nothing on streetview picture either.
If it were a real post I would check further.
Just a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 31 Aug 12 - 04:10 AM
Jim, are we British "deeply racist" by our genes or are we culturally implanted with it?
Keith has just accused a poster of lying on the basis that a publican wishing to publicise his pub could quite possibly have removed a 'no Traveller' notice before taking a publicity photograph
No Jim.
I was prepared to believe it and began looking in to it.
Then I noticed that the troll had never posted here before.
He was just winding us up, but you could give the place a call or visit them next week.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 03:33 AM
I just said that the signs are not "common throughout Britain."

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 05:58 AM
Jim, you stated that ""No Travellers Served" is a common notice throughout Britain "
I denied it.
I was right and you were wrong, as usual.
All the evidence you put up was gone through by CS, and found not to be evidence at all.
The first hand evidence of numerous Mudcatters actual experience clearly showed that the signs are NOT common throughout Britain.
You were wrong about that Jim, and that is all I have argued.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:02 AM
Which "two pubs in the Bristol area" Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:47 AM
He started this thread in order to challenge the documented abuse of Travellers
No.
It was to find out if "no travellers" signs are common throughout Britain as you claimed.
We found they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 05:04 AM
"An ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it"
I am not a racist.
The British are not deeply racist.
Those signs are not remotely common throughout Britain.
There are not two pubs in Bristol displaying those signs.
Jim is a shocking liar and a deeply prejudiced bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 03:02 AM
So you have finally stopped trying to defend the ludicrously indefensible Jim.
We have hundreds of Mudcatter years of never seeing one, yet you claim to have found two in less than a week.
If you want to be believed, identify the pubs so someone can discreetly check.
Re the ad hominem thing;
It was not a racist theory because the proponents had impeccable anti-racist credentials and most were Pakistanis.
Certainly not racist to just report it!
The question is not why I came to believe them, but why anyone should imagine they know better.
To be blunt, why would any sentient, rational person dismiss all those lifetimes of experience, and listen to a twat like you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:21 AM
I sincerely wish you well with your medical troubles Jim.
No-one here would cause any trouble over those pubs if they exist.
We could circulate it by pm and be very discreet, as I said.
I think you made them up Jim, but am prepared to be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:20 PM

This – about three nights of rioting that took place in Belfast 2010 which you attempted to prove were the fault of young children and "outside influences"
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM
"All the reports and witnesses refer to that. So many children that the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner felt the need to make statements about it.
Put up some evidence that there were not large numbers of kids Jim?
You can't because they were there."
As with the "No Traveller" signs – I have no doubt that, having denied you said this, you will now attempt to re-open the argument that children were responsible for three nights of rioting.
Not for me I'm afraid Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM

THis is how you tried to describe the Twelfth of July in a discussion of sectarian rioting
"They described the Twelfth as their St Patrick's Day, a community day out that gives them a chance to celebrate their culture and history."
And lest we forget - this is how you dsescribed the brainwashing of Irish schoolchildren of the 'Potato Blight' thread
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
Likewise for both of these - no revisiting these disgusting arguments for me
Last time was plenty

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 02:20 PM

Professor, if you not understand the significance of Green, White and Gold and Red, White and Blue in religious terms in Ireland you are utterly, utterly ignorant.

I would suggest you try to learn something about the country but I know it would be a complete waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 03:58 PM

Great news: Rima Khalaf, head of that obscure U.N. agency ECSWA, comprised of 18 Arab states, has just resigned under pressure from the U.N. chief to pull a report authored by Richard Falk which condemns Israel for 'apartheid'.

Better news: seems that the U.N. has just deleted from the #ESCWA website the despicable Richard Falk report accusing Israel of 'apartheid'

I hope Carroll can bear his disappointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 04:49 PM

to pull a report authored by Richard Falk which condemns Israel for 'apartheid'.

Plenty of other reports, Boo, that definatively document Israel as an apartheid state.

Of course, you could fall back on Trumpist "alternative facts" to dispute reality.....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 07:01 PM

To call Israel an apartheid state is an expression of ignorance, anti-Semitism, and malice. Israel is by far the most racially mixed and tolerant nation in the entire Muslim Middle East. Arabs, who are about 20% of Israel's population, enjoy, without any exception, the same rights and opportunities in all fields as their Jewish fellow citizens. The total equality of all Israelis is assured in Israel's founding document. All non-Jews (which means primarily Muslim Arabs) have full voting rights. At present, seventeen Arabs sit in Israel's Knesset (parliament): Three Arabs are deputy speakers. Arabs are represented in Israel's diplomatic service all over the world. Arab students may and do study in all Israeli universities. All children in Israel are entitled to subsidized education until graduation, without any restrictions based on color or religions. In short, Muslim Arabs and other non-Jews are allowed everything that Jews are allowed, everything that non-Whites were not allowed in apartheid South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 07:26 PM

Been here many times before, boobs. Israeli Arabs have poorer housing, poorer schooling, poorer pay, poorer job prospects, higher unemployment, have to endure school transport that refuses to pass through their towns, only round the margins, are subject to checkpoints that can hold them up without good reason for days, may well be separated from their families by a concrete wall... I suppose you think it's all their fault, that they're all just lazy, feckless Arabs. Open your eyes. I've documented these facts before.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 17 - 08:40 PM

By the way, and you'll probably like this, Dave, we had pork chops for tea tonight, done Delia-style with mushrooms, thyme, lemon and cream, baked in the oven. Glorious. The key fact here is that I'd bought the chops from the Gloucester Services butcher. In fact, the carrier bag had "Tebay Services" on it. It seems bloody ridiculous that I should be singing the praises of a motorway services, but I don't buy my pork from anywhere else these days. Our local butcher used to sell us pork that he got from the farm of Mary Quicke MBE, her of Quicke's cheddar. Unfortunately, he retired and Mrs Quicke stopped doing her amazing whey-fed pigs, so decent pork is impossible to get in Bude these days. Thank God for Gloucester Services! I have pork belly from there in my freezer, as well as a beautiful hunk of boned and rolled shoulder with a mass of crackling. All Gloucester Old Spot, free-range. Life is good.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:24 AM

Jim, You accused me of defending "no travellers signs."

You lied. I never would or did.
What I did was deny your ludicrous, lying claim that such signs "are common throughout Britain."

You lie. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:31 AM

Jim,
or the three days of rioting in Belfast which you attempted to blame on children,

If you are not lying and I said anything untrue, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

Your quote of me does not do that.

"Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM
"All the reports and witnesses refer to that. So many children that the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner felt the need to make statements about it.
Put up some evidence that there were not large numbers of kids Jim?
You can't because they were there."

I provided the reports and witness statements.
I quoted the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner.
It was all true.
You lied. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:40 AM

Jim,
violent sectarian marches which you tried to pass of as a pleasant day out?

If I said that about any violent march, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

You quoted me, ""They described the Twelfth as their St Patrick's Day, a community day out that gives them a chance to celebrate their culture and history."

They did describe it thus, and the parades were overwhelmingly peaceful. Now they all are.
You lie. I do not.

As usual Jim, you give up trying to make a case, and start making up lies about me personally instead.
You do it every time!
You might as well hoist a white flag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:45 AM

"No Travellers signs common??

Never seen one in my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:45 AM

Steve,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about

Hate crime effects a tiny proportion Steve, and so does rape.

It is still a serious issue worthy of serious concern.
You only suggest dismissing it because the main victims are Jews.
You did not make that argument when hate crimes against EU citizens following Brexit were discussed here, or when Islamophobic crimes have been discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:55 AM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 08 Jan 13 - 07:44 PM

I can only re-iterate what I have said before. In my experience such signs are not common. I have neen in a lot of pubs, all over the country for many years, and the only one I have ever seem in respect of travellers was in the Morning Star, Wardley, Mancheter which said 'Travellers Welcome!'

I have no doubt that you are right, Jim, and to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be. But that is no evidence whatsover to say the signs are common. I know you will never agree but I believe that this is all Keith is trying to put across.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:51 AM

Please note that, as ever, I am trying to provide a reasonable answer to why some say one thing and some say another while both are, in part, right. As I said 4 years ago, to the travellers who they affect, the signs are common. To those who are not looking for them, such as us, they are not. Why is it that others cannot see that? Can you, Keith? Jim? It was the same with the cultural implant debacle. My problem is that I am too reasonable. Although I am sure many would disagree :-)

We have a brilliant butcher in the village, Steve, although I must say that I have not tried Tebay pork as a comparison. Should be passing in April so may give it a try. We also have a Booth's supermarket just up the road in Settle. They seem to do the same range as Tebay so may give them a try and risk excommication from Morrisons. Very stormy weather here today so no outdoor activities for me. Pretty much a fair weather hiker nowadays.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 05:22 AM

Dave,
I know you will never agree but I believe that this is all Keith is trying to put across.

It was and I said so. We were in complete agreement on that thread.
What I never did and never would do is "defend" such signs.
Jim lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 05:41 AM

More denials and attempts to open up new arguments Keith - just as I predicted
You said you never saw the signs - I say Pat and I worked with travellers for thirty years, we saw hundreds, I photographed dozens as part of a campaign run by a London solicitor who was voluntarily working on behalf of the Travellers, we included one in our CD notes, you were given articles about court cases involving them - presumably you still insist that they are rare and that I have lied which makes you the bigot you are
I don't suppose for one moment you will apologise for any of this -you are a bigot andf your behaviour proves beyind doubt that you have lied
Jim Carroll

This is a tiny sample of reports of these signs - plenty more to choose from and far too numerous to blue clickie
Since John Major repealed the Caravan and Camping act leaving Travellers with no right to stop other than the totally inadequate handful of official stopping places, and since the spitefulness of Dale Farm, things have not improved, if anything, they have deteriorated under governments that favour the wealthy rather than the needy - thanks to bigots like Keith

https://hospitalitylaw.co.uk/large-awards-for-travellers-refused-entry-to-pubs/

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Operators/Other-operators/Pub-manager-sacked-for-no-travelers-sign


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086098/Ice-rink-accused-inciting-racial-hatred-putting-sign-banning-travellers.html

http://travellerstimes.org.uk/Blogs--Features/No-Travellers-No-More-say-lawyers-.aspx

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/jd-wetherspoon-to-pay-travellers-over-refused-service-in-london-1.2872396

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/114652/Racial-warning-for-jeweller-who-banned-gypsies-from-shop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/voices/prejudice.shtml

From Wrexham Borough Council document 'Making Links'
10. Prejudice
The Commission for Racial Equality report 'Common Ground' 2006 identified widespread evidence of public hostility in Britain towards Gypsy and Irish Travellers. Examples included:
• Illegal 'No Travellers' signs in shops and pubs;
• Gypsy and Irish Travellers experiencing great difficulty in getting planning permission for private sites;
• Gypsy and Irish Traveller children being bullied and harassed at schools by other pupils; and
• Growing numbers of reports of racist graffiti and attacks.

From
"British Anti-Discrimination Legislation and its Protection for Gypsies and Travellers"
'…Gypsies and Travellers are still experiencing
discrimination of the most overt kind:
'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs' signs
disappeared decades ago, but the 'No Travellers' signs,
used intentionally to exclude Gypsies and Travellers,
are widespread indicating that discrimination against these groups
remains the last 'respectable' form of racism in the UK.'
Legal Action Group (2004)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:06 AM

You said you never saw the signs

So did Dave, and every one else on that old thread.
It is a simple lie to claim that they "are common throughout Britain" and a blatant lie to say that I defended such signs.
If it is not a lie, QUOTE ME SAYING IT!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:21 AM

You defend the signs by saying tehy are not common
Unless you cross posted you are still defending those signs by saying they are not common
Would you like to comment on the statements you have been offered or do you suggest that those who say they are common are lying?
I claim no deep knowledge of Traveller experience but thirty years gives me an insight you don't have - nor, I suggest, does most people
Why do you continue to insist that they are uncommon when the evidence proves they are not- unless you are a bigot?
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

It is a simple lie to claim that they "are common throughout Britain"

It is not a lie, Keith. I said "to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be". What is so difficult to understand? You are right. Jim is right. Maybe I should add different perspectives to my mantra?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

"Steve,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about"

Hate crime effects a tiny proportion Steve, and so does rape.

It is still a serious issue worthy of serious concern.
You only suggest dismissing it because the main victims are Jews.
You did not make that argument when hate crimes against EU citizens following Brexit were discussed here, or when Islamophobic crimes have been discussed.

173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault, US, (2013)

730 victims of hate crime of an anti-Jewish nature, US, (2015)

Would you now care to review your exceptionally ignorant comment about rape? And I haven't "dismissed" anything. I've said at least twice that all hate crime is an abomination. What a disgraceful post, even by your gutter standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 07:26 AM

Bit of light relief to brighten your day, Steve. After mentioning Booth's earlier I also realised that we have a farm shop very close by that does lots of good stuff. On that tack I thought I would look up stuff around your area and found https://www.cornwalls.co.uk/food/farmers

They may all be crap and you may have tried them already but for speciality meats and the like would they be worth a try?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 10:54 AM

We use a couple of farm shops round here occasionally. They tend to be uncheap as they cater for the tourist trade a fair bit. We had a good rare breeds farm that sold his own meat but it went years ago. There are some organic farms that sell meat round here but their stuff costs an arm and a leg, and their arms, legs and shoulders can be a bit on the titchy side. I like big hunks of meat only for roasting. Free-range chickens that weigh at least two kilos, shoulders of lamb on the bone no less than six or seven pounds, that sort of thing. Our butcher produces superb lamb and beef on his own farm, not pork unfortunately. I like long, slow cooking except for chickens. I never weigh joints of meat before I cook 'em. After last night's superb chops we're going veggie tonight, chitarra pasta with tomatoes, rocket and chilli. Just off to work on that hole now. Gotta smash up some stuff for hardcore and riddle some chippings to get the soil out. then I'm watching Man City vs Liverpool. I'll have earned a glass or four of that lovely Morrisons Signature Nero d'Avola after all that. Have you 'ad a word yet, Dave? Up the reds!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 11:48 AM

Jim,
You defend the signs by saying tehy are not common

That is not defending them, and it is a fact that they are not common.

Dave said he had only ever in his whole life seen a "travellers welcome" sign (on a pub) and never a "no travellers" sign.

Here he also says that you are "racist" and plain stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: 'NoTravellers'common UK sign?
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Aug 12 - 12:24 PM

I can honestly say that I have heard of such things but only ever seen the exact reverse. On the door of the 'Morning Star', Wardley, some 20-30 years back there was a big sign saying 'Travellers Welcome'! There was a temporary camp on the 'Moss' at the side of the Star and the landlord made so much cash during the time it was there he managed to retire early!

All anecdotal and personal experience of couse and, therefore, completely invalid in this so called argument.

What is neither anecdotal nor personal to me is the obvious fact that someone here is a racist. Anyone who can tar the whole Brotish nation as racist based on the acts of a small mimority is applying th every stereotypes he reckons he is so against.

Ironic? No. Just plain stupid.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 11:55 AM

Here he also says that you are "racist" and plain stupid.

Nooooooh, really...............lolololol!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:00 PM

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 09 Jan 13 - 02:10 PM

Nobody has proffered the information as to what contact they have had with Travellers, whether they have spoken to any of them, whether they live in the proximity of a Travellers site, whether Travellers move through their area regularly; just that they have not personally seen them - no context, no background information, just that.

Very disingenuous of you Jim. For the record I proffered the information that not only was there a Gypsy site in proximity of the Morning Star but that my Uncle had close dealings with the travelers themselves. But, in case you missed that, I can also update and add to that.

There is a travelers site not 10 minutes walk from where I live - here. and plenty of support for the traveling people from our community. My local is one of the nearest pubs to the site but there at least a dozen or more others in close proximity and not one of them has ever turned a traveler away let alone had such a notice.

Over the years I have traveled the length and breadth of the country myself - Not stopping in a caravan but hotels and B&Bs for my job and I always make sure I visit a local pub and, if possible , try the local ale. I estimate that I must have visited upwards of 500 pubs over the years and never seen such a thing. I can only comment about the proximity to traveling communities where I know, as I have said, but in my mind such notices are not common.

Yet I am still willing to accept the premise that they are more common than they should be and, were I a traveler, I would notice them more. You, however, seem to be working on the basis that if it does not fit with your dogma than it must be wrong. You will not commit to a figure that is agreed as common - 1%? 10%? 20%? What? The only evidence you provide is anecdotal and hearsay and yet everyone that disagrees with you is a racist bigot! Come on, man. Give it up. I know it sticks in your throat but this time Keith is right.

Oh, and you never did supply the responses you promised after my last note.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

Well good to see the gang are running true to form.

Steve compares the number of sexual offences against ALL women in the US with the number of hate crimes against Jews.....typical idiocy.
I suppose he will plead ignorance and he HAS grounds, but on this occasion I think desperation is nearer the mark.

Dave is just being his twisted trolling self, denying what he himself posted......the creature has no shame.

Don't worry Keith they will never intimidate you while the rest of the forum watches their atrocious behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:20 PM

Talking about rare, you make a big thing of hate crime against Jews then say that rape affects only a tiny proportion of people. Rape and sexual assault in the US affects 238 times as many people as hate crime affects Jews. In the light of this, I'm having difficulty getting my head round your concepts of tiny, uncommon and rare. There appears to be a degree of elasticity around them that, shall we say, doesn't exactly inspire one with confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:25 PM

"it is a fact that they are not common."
Then why have documents like The Anti Discrimination Legislation described them not only as common, but still existing as acceptable iscrimination.
I don't give a shit that you or whoever have not seen them - how many of these people have worked with travellers
So far, your entire defence of your bigotry is that you have never seen them - nothing else.
You've had a small section of the large number of links dealing with these signs - you refuse even to acknowledge them
Are you thick enough to believe that one sign on one pub makes me a liar
Perhaps you might address what Dave has written
"It is not a lie, Keith. I said "to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be". What is so difficult to understand? You are right. Jim is right. "
Is he a liar too?
"Here he also says that you are "racist" and plain stupid."
One of your nastiest traits on this forum is to try to set one member against the other - you are a truly appalling individual
That is exactly what makes you the racist and dishonest bigot that you are
You reject other peoples findings because it doesn't fit your bigoted agenda.
I ask you again to have the good manners to address the links put up - are they lying - are they mistaken - did I invent them..... what?
The same with your incredible stupid and arrogant statement about "politics not religion".
You have been given examples of the anti catholic motivation of the "sectarian" marches (the clue is in the title - not left or right, but catholic and protestant) yet you dismiss the fact that the dispute in the North is religion driven.
I have pointed out in the past when discussing Ireland, that I com from an Irish background, I have a lifelong interest in Ireland and I've seen the results of the Catholic/Protestant divide first hand.
I even have family who were driven out of Derry after having their home burnt over their heads because they were the "wrong" religion.
You are a mindless, arrogant and extremely bigoted individual - they most extreme I have ever encountered.
This is over - you stand convicted of your lying bigotry
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:37 PM

Absolutely, Keith. Jim and I have had this conversation many a time and always remained on civil terms. I think he understands that when I disagree with him it is only from th epoint of view of my experience and I always accept that the experience of others may be different. I have said, twice now but as you seem to be ignoring it I will try a third time, that to those looking out for them, such as travelers, they will be more common than they should be. Unlike you who insist that they do not exist at all.

In one of the posts you have copied you have emboldened some passages. We all know by now that your understanding of what I intend is flawed at best so your emphasis is entirely driven by your agenda. Whatver that may be. Also, you have not highlighted the following

Yet I am still willing to accept the premise that they are more common than they should be and, were I a traveler, I would notice them more.

This is the reason that you rub people up the wrong way, Keith. You are so insistent that your view is the only one that is right. I have, as you have clearly demonstrated, been willing to listen to others and accept their point of view even when it is outside my experience. On rare occasions even you have some valid points and, when you do, I said so as you demonstrate.

As to anyone being racist, yes, anyone who tars an entire nationality with a particular trait is being racist and I have said the same to Jim many a time. Yet we have remained friendly and civil about it. You may want to ask yourself why. If you like you can ask Jim as well and he will tell you the same.

But I doubt you will.

So much for your 'little gang' theory as well eh?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:43 PM

There was a large number of "Traveller" families in our area during the last few decades (West of Scotland). I work extensively throughout the area and never once saw such a sign.

Most of these "travellers" have now taken up residence in Social housing, since the closure of their encampment...which has been discussed here some time ago.

I have never seen a "No Travellers" sign anywhere in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:43 PM

Ake Dave is just being his twisted trolling self, denying what he himself posted......the creature has no shame.

Once again you post stuff that to anyone with half a brain is ludicrous. I suggest you post examples of me denying what I posted or it becomes apparent that you are making it up again. Unless of course it is some sort of demonstration to keep your job as village idiot. In which case, feel free to carry on until you get the thread closed. Again.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:45 PM

"Don't worry Keith they will never intimidate you while the rest of the forum watches their atrocious behaviour."
From an extremely safe distance in your case Ake
Have you no courage to back up your claims
Keith chooses to expose himself as a bigot and a liar - perhaps you might help him out rather than cheering him on from the safety and comfort of the sidelines
No?
Thought not
Not your style
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 12:58 PM

Oooh. Jim, Just the man! Would you care to join me in demonstrating how we can disagree without rancour and even have strong words without them leading to a war of attrition?

If I was to say to you that your comments about the British being racist are in themselves a racist statement, how would you react? Oh, and you may want to confirm that this is unplanned, unrehearsed and we have had no private contact.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:14 PM

"Would you care to join me in demonstrating how we can disagree without rancour"
Bit difficult with someone who calls you a liar and refuses to respond to facts Dave
Keith Chooses to expose himself to attacks with his obsessive hatred of minorities - don;t know how to deal with that one
"If I was to say to you that your comments about the British being racist are in themselves a racist statement, how would you react"
As I have4 in the past Dave - WITH EVIDENCE
I have attempted to qualify my statement by putting it in both a historical and social context
I believe British Racism stems from out Imperial past when to be foreign was to be inferior and exploitable - I'm old enough to remember this actually taught in schools and used as an excuse to not let go of our colonies - "They aren't ready to govern themselves" was regularly used to oppose independence.
We even sang hymns in school which talked about being foreign as being "in errors chain" (see 'From Greenland's Icy Mountains')
Since then, politicians have used the presence of foreigners to cover up their own failures and more recently, to win elections - Brexit and the U.S. Presidential Election were fought an an anti-foreigner ticket, and Ukip had no policy other than getting out of Europe and stopping immigration (thankfully - that party appears to be dead in the water).
Racism in Britain tends to be largely passive, only surfacing at ties of hardship and recession.
The worrying thing is that racism appears to be hardening, particularly against immigrants
During my lifetime Britain was accepting refugees from Europe who were fleeing Nazism - now many seem happy to see dead refugee children carried from the sea and still refuse to recognise the plight of people that we have helped to cause
You want an immediate example - go look up the sharp rise in racist incidents following Brexit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 02:45 PM

Dave,
Give it up. I know it sticks in your throat but this time Keith is right.

That is what you said at the time, and your meaning was clear.
Yes, one notice is too many, and I abhor them however rare, but it is a lie to state that they are common throughout Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:07 PM

I haven't forgotten the lost bingo ball fiasco and those photocopied cards of yours, Dave. We didn't fall out about it, though, did we? Mind you, it was hard not to. Damned hard. Thank God those pensioners in Dewsbury couldn't afford a lawyer...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:18 PM

Steve - :-D

Jim - Exactly what I was expecting, and a good answer. Thanks. Your point about imperialism is quite right. However, I am half Polish, class myself as British and I do not think I am particularly racist. Yet I was brought up in suburban Manchester in the 1950s when racism was endemic. Life is not black and white, if you will excuse the expression given the topic! Anyway, my point about not stereotyping a nation as racists, when there are demonstrable exceptions, is also right. So we are both right in different ways.

This is what I have trouble getting across to people like Keith and, although in the past I have put this down to myself, I now know it is not all me. I think, even if we disagree on this point, we are on a much more similar wavelength and can agree to disagree. Something that can never be achieved in certain quarters.

I don't want to get too bogged down in this so I will just make the point that any discussion is as much about attitude and how you treat other people as it is about facts and evidence.

BTW, I do not think the rise in racism is a predominately British thing. The far right seem to be gaining ground all over the world.

Keith - Yes, you were right and I hope after all I said above that you will realise that Jim was also right. But I guess that, sadly, you will try to spin that to your own agenda as well.


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:23 PM

Steve, you attacked my statement, "Hate crime effects a tiny proportion Steve, and so does rape."

You stated, "173,610 victims of rape or sexual assault," (USA)

But, "The FBI is charged under the Hate Crime Statistics Act with compiling statistics on hate crimes. In its most recent report, for 2013, it counted 5,928 incidents resulting in 7,242 victims. That was a decline from 2012, in which the FBI tallied 6,573 incidents. "

Taking the lowest figure, that is only 24 times less, and as rape is a smaller subset of all sexual assaults it is much less than 24 times and broadly comparable with hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:28 PM

Dave,
Keith - Yes, you were right and I hope after all I said above that you will realise that Jim was also right. But I guess that, sadly, you will try to spin that to your own agenda as well.

No spin.
You said I was right. You certainly did not say that Jim was right!

You said, "but in my mind such notices are not common." contradicting his claim that they are "common all over Britain"!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:33 PM

"but it is a lie to state that they are common throughout Britain.
Uttre madness
Why will you not respond to what has been put up if it isn't because of your insane hatred for minorities
Whee is your evidence that they are telling lies?
Nutty as a bag of cashews
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:33 PM

I was using the stats that bobad provided and you know it. I've made it clear in several posts that I'm sceptical about those puzzlingly-low numbers. However, I see you're still minimising rape and sexual assault (you now appear to be trivialising the latter...) in favour of your narrow, blind agenda which involves talking up Jews as victims at all costs. You're up shit creek without a paddle on this one, Keith. Be thankful that most people on this forum aren't reading your posts in this thread. I'd change the subject sharpish if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM

"but in my mind such notices are not common."
Where are your historians of yesteryear Keith
Dave may have held that opinion but that's all it is - an opinion, which he put reasonably
It would carry weight if he offered evidence to support it.
Please respond to what has been put up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:12 PM

So I see Shaw is trying to make some bizarre equivalence between rape and anti-Semitic hate crime - scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:39 PM

The problem is, Jim, that evidence for the lack Of something is impossible to furnish so my opinion is all I have to go on. My opinion is that from my point of view these notices are not common. From the traveler's point of view they may well be. I have asked before and don't recall getting an answer. What do you mean by common? How many pubs would you say display such notices? Help us out here!

In the meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the complainants about little sojourns into the pleasanter things of life are happy to move off topic to argue about other things? Wonder why that is?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:39 PM

The problem is, Jim, that evidence for the lack Of something is impossible to furnish so my opinion is all I have to go on. My opinion is that from my point of view these notices are not common. From the traveler's point of view they may well be. I have asked before and don't recall getting an answer. What do you mean by common? How many pubs would you say display such notices? Help us out here!

In the meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the complainants about little sojourns into the pleasanter things of life are happy to move off topic to argue about other things? Wonder why that is?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 04:59 PM

rish Travellers win discrimination case after Wetherspoon's pub refuses them entry
They said they were turned away because they had come from the Traveller conference which was being held next door.

Nov 17th 2016, 8:39 PM 43,473 Views 9 Comments Share37 Tweet Email2

Image: PA Archive/PA Images
A GROUP OF Irish Travellers has won a discrimination case against a Wetherspoon's in London which didn't let them in.
The Traveller Movement, along with its 18 co-claimants, brought the case to court after a delegates from a conference were refused entry to the Coronet Pub on Holloway Road, north London, five years ago.
Wetherspoon's has settled the case and has apologised to everyone affected by the incident.
The firm also agreed to pay the legal costs of all claimants.
Stereotype
The judge in the case said the manager of the pub adopted "the stereotypical assumption that Irish Travellers and English gypsies cause disorder wherever they go".
Chairman of Wetherspoon, Tim Martin, said more is being done to make sure an incident like this doesn't happen again.
He said: "This is the first time in our 37 year history that a case of discrimination for refusal of entry to a Wetherspoon pub has gone to court. I apologise to those who were not allowed in the Coronet pub and we have put in place improved training and management systems to try to prevent a recurrence."
Yvonne MacNamara, chief executive of the Traveller Movement and one of the claimants in the case said she hopes the judgement sends a message to publicans that they cannot judge people because they are travellers or gypsies.
She said:
This is a real David vs Goliath story and with any luck will show that no matter how big a company you are, you cannot get away with discrimination.
"We are absolutely delighted that the case is finally settled and I sincerely hope this will be serve as a firm warning to pubs and other service providers across the country that discrimination against gypsies and travellers will no longer be tolerated."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 05:00 PM

It wasn't me making equivalence, boobs. It was Keith who stated, utterly incorrectly and without checking his facts, that both rape and hate crime affected only "tiny" proportions. So who's making the equivalence, boobs? Me or him? And who was it who provided the comparative statistics? Me or him? Jayz, I was even polite enough to use yours!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:03 PM

As I've been mildly horrible to you today, Dave (and let's face it, the bingo episode, bitter taste though it leaves in the mouth, is in the past - more or less), I'll make recompense by informing you of a superb dish made with a type of pasta that I have only been able to obtain in Morrisons (bearing in mind that I live in the boondocks). I did mention it earlier, but it turned out so well that I feel that the whole planet needs to be regaled with it. The pasta is chitarra spaghetti, thicker than ordinary spaghetti and square in cross-section. Proceed as follows. You need 250g pasta.

For two people. Put three tablespoons of EV olive oil in a frying pan. Finely slice two cloves of garlic into the cold oil. NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER use a garlic crusher. Throw it away. Take 250g of the best cherry toms you can get your hands on and cut them in half. You also need a small glass of decent white wine, dried chilli flakes, a half-teaspoon of sugar (Italian chefs' secret weapon), a teaspoon of salt or less (to taste) and a big handful of wild rocket, roughly chopped.

Gently sautée the garlic. After a few minutes add a goodly pinch of chilli flakes. The amount you add is entirely your responsibility, but the dish does need to be spicy. After another minute, add the toms and salt and turn up the heat. When they start to soften, add the wine and let it bubble. Turn down the heat and simmer uncovered for five minutes or more. Meanwhile, boil the pasta in plenty of salted water. I found that it took 15 minutes. It will be less if you use ordinary spaghetti or linguine. Two minutes before you reckon the pasta is done, throw the rocket into the sauce.

Drain the pasta, not too fastidiously, but keep a bit of pasta water just in case it's a bit dry (it probably won't be). Throw the pasta into the sauce. Stir it around. Whack it into two bowls, drizzle a bit more EV olive oil on top, eat, then make love. No cheese. Definitely no cheese, no matter what your instincts tell you. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but it's a sensational dish. Cheers to Gino for the inspiration.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:03 PM

One more time
British Anti-Discrimination Legislation and
its Protection for Gypsies and Travellers
'…Gypsies and Travellers are still experiencing
discrimination of the most overt kind:
'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs' signs
disappeared decades ago, but the 'No Travellers' signs,
used intentionally to exclude Gypsies and Travellers,
are widespread indicating that discrimination against these groups
remains the last 'respectable' form of racism in the UK.'
Legal Action Group (2004)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:25 PM

Nick Cohen tears a layer of skin off of Jeremy Corbyn in Sunday's Guardian: Don't tell me you weren't warned about Corbyn

The Tories have gone easy on Corbyn and his comrades to date for the transparently obvious reason that they want to keep them in charge of Labour.

In an election, they would tear them to pieces. They will expose the far left's record of excusing the imperialism of Vladimir Putin's gangster state , the oppressors of women and murderers of gays in Iran, the IRA, and every variety of inquisitorial and homicidal Islamist movement, while presenting itself with hypocritical piety as a moral force. Will there be 150, 125, 100 Labour MPs by the end of the flaying? My advice is to think of a number then halve it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I accept that among you there are true far leftists who won't care. You want, and may get, a "radical" Labour party that will spend decades in opposition waiting for the glorious day when voters realise their mistake.

I don't think your imaginary victory is worth waiting for. You don't have a radical programme that a 20th-century Marxist or any other serious thinker would recognise. All that's left of the far left is a babble of sneers and slogans. But, let me be fair, by your own lights you have a strategy, and are not complete fools.

The majority of Corbyn supporters are another matter. Labour MPs are biting their tongues now and letting Corbyn show himself for what he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 06:29 PM

So, not being awkward Jim but I know it will be asked anyway. That was in 2004. Is it still going on 13 years later? If so someone in authority needs a slap.

Steve - Sounds wonderful. Will a very small quantity of chilli do? I like it but Mrs G can only take a bit. Funny thing with me and chilli. Most sorts are fine. Others can set off my asthma. Usually Thai dishes and the oddest one of all was chilli ice cream in Whitby some years back. I seem fine with Mexican food so I guess it is some sort of regional chilli that sets it off.

Talking of making love I found out how to do it back to back some years ago.

Invite another couple...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 08:04 PM

There is no "Sunday Guardian," boobs. Jeez, don't you and keef ever check anything? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM

Don't tell me you weren't warned about Corbyn
Nick Cohen

Sunday 19 March 2017 00.04 GMT Last modified on Sunday 19 March 2017 10.03 GMT

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 08:34 PM

There is no Sunday Guardian, boobs. There is also no link in your post. "Sunday's Guardian" simply shows that you are out of touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:19 PM

the guardian

Don't tell me you weren't warned about Corbyn
Nick Cohen

Sunday 19 March 2017 00.04 GMT Last modified on Sunday 19 March 2017 10.03 GMT

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:36 PM

That's the website, boobs. There is no "Sunday's Guardian." The fact that you referred to such a thing demonstrates your total lack of reliability, as if we didn't already know. Do try to check your facts before posting, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:46 PM

"That was in 2004. Is it still going on 13 years later?"
Whhhat#s changed to stop it Dave ?
No sign of enlightenment regarding Travellers
Major recinded the Caravan and camping laws in 1994, leaving Travellers no legal right to stop anywhere.
We were in Bristol in 2004 and it was still going strong and the Witherspoon case was two years ago.
Far from being welcome by the settled community, the lot of Travellers has worsened.
This, from the Runnymede Trust report of 2015

"We have also repeatedly highlighted our concerns over the inequalities faced by the Gypsy and Traveller community. We have published a number of research reports, produced guidance to raise awareness of their legal rights and undertaken strategic litigation – including recent wins not just against pubs (for unlawful refusal of service) but also against Government (for unlawful discrimination in recovering planning applications)."
If you are arguing that things have changed (they certainly hadn't four years ago), then you have to show when and how
The only thing that has changes is the Travellers have become more organised and aware of their rights and have won support to challenge this racist behaviour.
The articles I have put up date as follows; 2014, 2014, 2009, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2015
If things have changed, what exactly and when
Both yours and Keith's case rest solely on your argument that you haven't seen them - had you seen them in the past and they suddenly disappeared, or is it that you have had no contact with Travellers ever?
Where did this enlightenment suddenly come from since 2004?
who cares about Travellers now?
ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE, NOT MANY
OR THIS
OR EVEN THIS
Sorry Dave - doesn't make sense - not from you anyway.
I expected a little more from you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 17 - 09:56 PM

Dave, chilli is kind of the point of that dish! If Mrs G. is not a chilli fan, then it may not be the dish for you. But how can one live without frequent lashings of chilli! I am severely perplexed here, Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:03 AM

No, it isn't my case, Jim, and you are missing the point. From my point of view and from Keith's point of view the signs are not common because we do not look for the. So we are right. From the traveler's point of view the signs are all too common because they affect them and because you have direct contact with the travelers, you are right.

The point is the truth can be different if seen from different perspectives. Remember the old blind men describing an elephant tale? They all told the truth as they saw it. Sorry you are disappointed in me but the fact is that Keith is as right as you are. Neither of you is lying.

It does prove my other point though. We can strongly disagree without recourse to insults and invective. Thank you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:12 AM

BTW, Jim, I am not saying anything has changed. I asked if it had, you answered that it had not. Seemples:-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:21 AM

Steve,
However, I see you're still minimising rape and sexual assault (you now appear to be trivialising the latter...)

What a dishonest representation of what I said!

You trivialised the importance of hate crime because the victims form a small proportion of the population. You compared them to victims of lightning.
I chose a crime that none of us would trivialise but that also effects only a small percentage.
I could have chosen black unarmed victims of police shootings. However few the victims it is an issue that must be taken seriously, like hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:24 AM

Jim,
Dave may have held that opinion but that's all it is - an opinion, which he put reasonably
It would carry weight if he offered evidence to support it.

He did. His own personal experience of hundreds of pubs all over Britain.
Those of us who live here know from our own experience that they are not "common throughout Britain" because we never see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 04:32 AM

"The Observer - Official Site
https://www.theguardian.com/observer
Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice"

The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday, as we all know Steve.
Using that non-confusion to try and discredit a point shows how desperate you are to avoid discussing the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:13 AM

Referring to very low numbers of a category of crime is not "trivialising" the crime. I've said a number of times now that all hate crime is abhorrent, cloth-ears. The nature of a crime is not the same thing as the numbers of a crime. You ignorantly tried to make rape equivalent to hate crime against Jews by saying that they both affected a tiny proportion of the population. That is a complete misrepresentation, as rape and sexual assault affects hundreds of times more people than hate crime directed at Jews. I point to your deficiencies and you get all defensive. Tough.

The Observer is the world's first Sunday paper, founded in 1791. It joined the Guardian media group two hundred years later. It is an independent newspaper in its own right, with its own style and its own name and its own regular columnists and it has its own editor. It is completely inaccurate to refer to it as the Guardian on Sunday or Sunday's Guardian. Why you dig in like this when you are so blatantly wrong is anyone's guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/observer

or from the web:-

Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice.
Bit like musketeers really

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM

Well you might as well say that all Murdoch's papers are the same paper then! The point itself here is trivial. The fact that bobad is so easily confused as to refer to Sunday's Guardian when there is no such rag speaks volumes about his lack of accuracy and reliability, and the fact that both he and Keith think it's worth it to keep digging is just laughable. They must feel great now that you've joined in. Isn't life fun! Move on, lads!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

This thread is now over 1500 posts long.

Interesting to point out that points put forward by Shaw/Carroll & Co have all been shown false.

Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? Shaw & Co denied there was any - false, Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for his anti-Semitic views and comments. The Gnome stated that ant- semitism was no worse in the Labour Party than in any other organisation - false. If "Travellers" get to decide what constitutes "anti-Traveller" discrimination, then Jews get to decide what constitutes anti-Semitism and wrt the political parties in the UK the poll carried out by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism resulted in a sliding scale of trust with regard to the degree of anti-Semitism they expect to encounter within the UK's political parties. The question asked was as follows:

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

- 87% responded affirmatively in relation to the Labour Party;
- 49% for the Green Party;
- 43% for UKIP;
- 40% for the SNP;
- 37% for the Liberal Democrats;
- 13% for the Conservative Party.

So not the same across the board at all Gnome if you take the word of those who would be on the receiving end of it.

Carroll made a big thing about the rise in hate crime caused by the result of the Brexit vote and the increase in xenophobia in the UK. Bobad made the perfectly true statement that when it comes to hate crimes based on religion attacks against Jews far outnumber those against any other religious group combined - he even produced the figures and statistics to prove that. Carroll/Shaw & Co could come up with nothing to refute the claim made by bobad although Shaw ended up saying that hate crime figures are insignificant in the greater scheme of things, which sort of blows Carroll's hate crime tidal surge out of the water doesn't it?

Someone said they were tired of people dragging up old threads yet from our clique of "usual Suspects", we have threads dragged up from 2011, 2012 and 2014 - your arguments were successfully challenged, countered and refuted then and they have been here yet one more time.

"Travellers Not Welcome Here" signs (The 2011 thread resurrected by Carroll) - I have never ever seen one single example of such a sign anywhere I have travelled in the UK, yet Carroll says that they are common - false, they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:54 AM

Judge, jury and executioner now, eh? Let's hope for your sake that Ken's lawyers aren't reading this thread! And let me try to make things clear for the second cloth-ears of the day. The hate crime statistics as presented by bobad (the numbers, not the percentages) are indeed oddly very low. I have expressed, several times, scepticism about these tiny numbers. However, I can only go from the numbers so helpfully provided. As I've said several times, all hate crime is abhorrent and in no way have I trivialised the nature of the crimes, though I have asked about their nature and received no response to that. There is no equivalence between the numbers provided by bobad and the numbers of people affected by rape and sexual assault, an equivalence of the numbers made by Keith (he said they were both tiny proportions) before he'd checked his facts. That is my point, definitely not to trivialise hate crime directed against Jewish people. One such crime is one too many. But the numbers provided so far in this thread suggest that our countries are safe places for Jews to live in. You are many, many times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than you are to be a victim of an anti-Jewish hate crime. If a point is being made that the hate crime issue is so terrible that Jewish people are being driven out of Europe in droves, one suggestion made here, then I think I it's perfectly valid to look at the numbers and put them in the context of other kinds of violent crime. That is what I've done, and only that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

"hundreds of pubs all over Britain."
Hundteds - as many as that?
We must have either been turned away from or been told that they didn't serve Travellers, at lest a few hundred pubs in North London alone
It's a crazy argument unless you can back it up with a statement that in each case there were Travellers in the immediate vicinity - neither of you have.
Saying there were no signs on pubs not frequented by Travellers is like putting a "beware of the crocodiles" sign on the banks of the Thames.
No Travellers - no signs - now that makes sense.
The last survey estimated that there are around 50,000 men women and children Travellers on the roads of Britain today - making how many pub users among those?
A drop in the ocean nationally.   
"From my point of view and from Keith's point of view the signs are not common because we do not look for them."
Don't know about you - Keith says I am lying when I say there are; the statements indicate that to be the case and our own experience backs that up entirely
In the vicinity of the Mile End Road in East London, only two pubs would serve Travellers, The White Lion and the Roebuck - all others refused to serve them and most had notices up.
I understand that all that has changes is the nature of the notices (Travellers by appointment only" is common now)
Another trick is to either place the notices over the bar so they cannot be seen from outside, or simply to ignore a suspected Traveller until they give up and go away - that happened to us in Bristol a couple of times, until we worked out that we could get drinks if the Travellers say in another room and Pat or I placed the order.
"the signs are not common because we do not look for the. So we are right."
As meaningless than anything Keith has ever said Dave
All that means is you haven't come across them - I wonder how many Travellers you've come across??
You are right about one thing - I am missing your point - please help me out
Ireland has, up to now, had a far worse human rights record regarding Travellers than Britain (at least it did have up to the time John Major repealed the 1968 Caravan - then the gap narrowed somewhat)
A couple of weeks ago the government here took the first tottering steps to putting things right when it announced that Travellers were now recognised officially as a minority ethnic group - a small step, but at least they fall under the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Even if Britain ever gets around to that, May Blossom has decided to pull Britain out of the Convention which leaves Travellers at the not so tender mercies of inhumane thugs like Dagenham and Brownhills Councils and the police who allow travelers to stay around only when they are 'brown-enveloped' for doing so.
These signs are still common - as you say, if you didn't see them, it's because you didn't look for them
Up to July, if you had told be that there were many thousands of Travellers in the London area, I'd have suggested you sought help.
Within a year we had learned there to be at least 500 families living within five miles of our home
Surprising what you find when you start looking
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:24 AM

Steve,
But the numbers provided so far in this thread suggest that our countries are safe places for Jews to live in

Yes, and unarmed black males are safe from police guns and women from being raped, but that is no reason not to express concern about it.

You said,
So tiny a proportion of the populations of countries mentioned, according to your stats, Keith, that I have to wonder what the song and dance is about. Just about four times more likely to be a Jewish victim of a hate crime than to be struck by lightning. Sounds like a pretty safe country in which to be a Jew to me. You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour

(I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem. What do they know?)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:30 AM

"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously
No serious problem has been found and the evidence for this is that those who say there is a problem are unable to substantiate it with eith description of numbers involved
Until they do, there is no problem - either logically or legally
One crusade at a time otherwise you will become confused
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM

The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday, as we all know Steve.
Using that non-confusion to try and discredit a point shows how desperate you are to avoid discussing the issue.

That's just Shaw's usual attempt at deflecting from the content that he can't handle, just as he is trying to get his pack to do with threads that show him for what he is. It's so transparent that it's not even worthy of rebuttal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:17 AM

One last time. The Guardian and the Observer are two different newspapers. They are independent of each other and they have different editors. I have a subscription to the Guardian but if I want the Observer newspaper I have to go out to buy it. The Observer is, quite simply, NOT the "Sunday Guardian!" They are in the same stable, they both have fairly low circulations and they do collaborate to an extent online in tbe interests of economy. BUT THEY ARE EDITORIALLY-INDEPENDENT, SEPARATE NEWSPAPERS! Aargh!! What part of this are you having such difficulty with?! Strewth! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Sorry, Teribus, but I don't understand that poll. Who was polled? How many? When was the poll taken? Once again, these are questions that we need the answers too before the figures can be taken seriously. The question is also rather strange. Do you believe a party is too tolerant is not the same as do you believe a party is antisemitic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 11:33 AM

Steve, They share the same website.
If you retrieve an Observer article online it is shown under "Guardian."
You can not tell from the link which paper carried it.
I have posted Observer articles as Guardian without you even noticing.
I doubt that Bobad can buy copies.

Jim, unless you admit lying about me distorting what people actually said, QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 12:27 PM

Just more idiocy from the idiot Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

"QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!!"
I have - interminably - try Date: 18 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM
I listed your extremism - on Muslim implants, on the Belfast riots and on Traveller signs
You denied them all then you did exactly what I said you'd do - you went on to defend what you had just denied - the Traveller signs.
Your longest running lie is your claim that you have posted quotes on your disgusting "implants" theory
You never have nor will you
Nobody other than you (and the BNP) have ever made such a claim
You could prove me wrong by linking to those quotes NOW
But you won't as nobody has ever made such a claim for you to quote
Every time you ask for proof of your lying, this will be the first - until you actually link us to the quote
You will now probably lie again and claim you already have - if so - where
Anther lie to add to the list (unless, of course, you provide a link
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM

No Jim, do not try and pretend this is more ancient stuff.

EARLIER TODAY you posted,
"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously.

If I distorted those Labour people (in this thread or its predecessor, not long forgotten ones) THEN QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!

I SAY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS JUST TODAY'S JIM LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 03:59 PM

"No Jim, do not try and pretend this is more ancient stuff."
Ancient stuff you confirm is still your belief when I raise it - as with the Traveller signs.
I told you you wouldn't link it - you lied
You asked for examples of your lying - I've just linked you to an earlier post and you set up a smokescreen
You lied - again
Don't ask for examples if you don't want them
Now - that link to thoe prominent people who told you muslims were implanted to rape children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 05:28 PM

Jim 'n' Dave, this thread has descended into comedic madness. You could scarcely believe that these two near-lunatics could be stupid enough to carry on the way they do. Even Teribus is keeping his head down, sensible chap. I'm beginning to question my own sanity this end.


"Sunday Guardian." Bwahahaha! Omigod, and the corset shop's closed until tomorrow!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 05:52 PM

N'e mind eh, Steve. First day of spring today. Maybe it is spring madness or something? Can we get back on to sensible stuff? We had Polish kutleti for tea and seeing as the Mrs was out I did the sauce. Looked what we had in the fridge and combined some of your ideas into a strange fusion. Did some chopped celery and carrot in olive oil. Has a tub of cherry tomatoes that were best before the 4th of March so they got chopped up and put in. Bit of mild chilli powder (the Mrs didn't even notice) various other bits and a glass of really crap British red wine (don't ask). I simmered it for a while and then zzzzzd it with a blender. Poured it over the kutleti that I had previously fried in a little olive oil and served it on some Polish pasta cabbage parcel thingies. Bit like east European ravioli. I shall call the principle Politalian. Must say it went down quite well and I am still alive so it must have been OK.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:09 PM

Experimentation is the name of the game!

Got the hole in my drive more or less sorted at last, so came in knackered at six o'clock. Had cold meat and veg but needed an effortless spud recipe. Then I remembered the Mediterranean roast spuds. So easy! Scrub some salad potatoes. Cut into half-inch chunks, unpeeled. Get a baking tray and toss the spuds with EV olive oil, salt, pepper and a few little sprigs of rosemary. Put into a very hot oven. After ten minutes, chuck in some unpeeled garlic cloves, as many as you like. You can squidge a couple up first if you like. Give them another 25-30 minutes. Sorted!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 06:20 PM

It looks like the Labour party got rid of one more anti-Semite:

Former Black Notley Parish Council leader John Clarke was criticised after endorsing a social media post which said "The Rothschild family has used money lending and Israel to "take over the world". He said the post was an "oversimflified view of the world economy but containing a great deal of truth".

He was suspended last month and was then referred by the NEC's disputes panel to the national constitutional committee last Tuesday. Within hours of the decision, he annoounced he was leaving Labour, though his current Twitter bio suggests he was "purged".

Under the party's rules, when any member resigns under suspension it is automatically treated as an expulsion and they cannot be admitted for at least five years.

Jewish News

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:20 PM

Give it a rest, boobs. You're clutching at straws. There are six hundred thousand of us. You have approximately 59,999,987 to go. Stay busy! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 07:36 PM

There are six hundred thousand of us.

Six hundred thousand anti-Semites, that sounds about right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 17 - 08:42 PM

You are the archetypal dullard, boobs. You never have anything to say. Review your last few days' posts. I have. No comment, no viewpoint, just bitter, sniping aggression. You are a very unhappy person, clearly. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:20 AM

Jim,
Ancient stuff you confirm is still your belief when I raise it - as with the Traveller signs.

I do not confirm your lies about the ancient stuff.
You stated that I defend "no travellers" signs which was a blatant lie.
I do not, but you are wrong to claim they are "common throughout Britain."

JUST YESTERDAY you posted,
"I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem."
No yoyu didn't Keith - you distorted people who were saying taht any accusation had to be taken seriously.

If I distorted those Labour people (in this thread or its predecessor, not long forgotten ones) THEN QUOTE ME DOING IT!!!

I SAY YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT IS JUST ANOTHER JIM LIE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:27 AM

Steve,
Confusing the Observer and the Guardian does not make a non-Brit "out of touch."
They are "sister" papers with an identical political stance and share a news website so no-one abroad can tell the difference.
You would have to get a calendar to check if the date was a Sunday!

It was just a desperate ruse by you to discredit a perfectly legitimate post from Bobad.

Now, this week Labour is all over the news again and not in a good way.
There is much to discuss.

1600 anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:42 AM

"I don't understand that poll. Who was polled? How many? When was the poll taken? Once again, these are questions that we need the answers too before the figures can be taken seriously." - the Gnome

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest Gnome. Fortunately the House of Commons Select committee on Anti-Semitism did understand it and accepted the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism results as being representative. But not to worry it serves if it gives you the head of another pin to dance on.

Shaw:
As far as me "supposedly" keeping my head down - I only ever post if I am responding to something that someone has said (You and the gang have had absolutely nothing of any importance to say for days now) or if I wish to make an observation of my own which I did on 20 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM when I summarised that every single contention that you and your pals have been posted to this thread (And that covers a myriad of subjects as you have dodged, deflected and diverted through this thread) have been challenged and shown to be false.

Carroll:
STILL cannot come up with one single post from Keith A that proves the latter a liar or someone who distorts the words of others. Wonder if Jom believes that anyone actually reads, or takes his posts seriously any more? But while we are on the subject of Travellers Jom - what are your views on modern day slavery as practiced in Traveller culture? (That should get him frothing for a bit

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:09 AM

"I do not confirm your lies about the ancient stuff."
But you constantly deny having said it, then, when you are presented wuith it, you go on to defend it, as you have just done with the Traveller signs and you have a doen times with your "Muslim implant" theory and many, many other topics, which confirms your dishonesty - quite enough for me.
Claiming Traveller signs are not commen then refusing to respond to the information that says they are is as dishonest as it gets and your sole argument that they are not common because "I've never seen one" is as mindless as it gets, as is persitently calling me a liar
Another mindless trait is persistently demanding answers to questions that have been answered over and over again - it is one on the common symptoms of senility.
Nothing new has emerged about Labour this week.
Those who wish to remove Corbyn because he is a Socialist and they are not and are more concerned with winning elections than actually introducing changes that will benefit the people of Britain - the Left versus the right within the Party is nothing new and until you are prepared to address what is going on, you are a waste of space in any discussion.
You keep producing statements by people who suit your particular nasty right-wing agenda and refuse to discuss them in depth.
You did so over your hopelessly failed "antisemitism" campaign and again and again dragged up statements by right-wing opponents who are trying to expunge anybody with decent socialist principles, either that, or you quote 'Friends of Israel' obeying the 'Their Master's Voice' call in order to get BDS removed from party policy
Responding to facile quotes from these people would be as meaningless as your putting them up.
All these matters can be dealt with by your responding to the overall facts of the situation - certainly not wasting time be dealing with individual quotes from one side of an internal party squabble.
Here's a point for you to respond to (or not, as I am sure the case with be)
These people opposing Corbyn at present are attempting an undemocratic internal coup in the Labour Party.
Corbyn has been elected twice, both times with overwhelming majorities, on a socialist programme.
Those trying to overthrow him are doing so in defiance of the majority of Labour Party members
They are an elected elite defying the democratic decision of the rank-and-file.
How democratic is that?
Britain needs a Labour Party which is a poor shadow of Tory politics like a fish needs a bicycle.
You want to discuss that - fine - we have a common ground of interest
You don't - piss of - I might as well argue with Norman Tebbitt, Nigel Farrago or Nick Griffin - there's little difference in what you are all saying
STILL NO IMPLANT QUOTE - YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THAT ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

"with an identical political stance"

Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:53 AM

Teribus - That doesn't surprise me in the slightest Gnome. Fortunately the House of Commons Select committee on Anti-Semitism did understand it and accepted the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism results as being representative

That is probably the worst example of a non-answer I have ever seen. You quote the results of a poll and are not prepared to let us know how the results were arrived at and you are not prepared to comment on the question that was asked?

Says a whole lot about how much you trust the poll itself. But that is par for the course. Until such a time as you are prepared to come back with a sensible answer I think we can safely ignore your nonsense.

You seem to have slipped back into old ways I'm afraid. You really need to work on your humour a bit more. I know it is difficult for a cantankerous old git but, honestly, it will be worth it in the end.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:57 AM

Your whole post is unfocused nonsense, Teribus. Just a load of vague having-a-go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

"with an identical political stance"

Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

From the Observer/guardian website:-
Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice.
or from Wiki.:-
The Observer is a British newspaper, published on Sundays. In the same place on the political spectrum as its sister paper The Guardian.
Talking rubbish as usual Shaw.
If their own website recognizes no distinction between the two, other than title then you are just waffling on as usual.
Try and do a little homework!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:45 AM

Well I'm on the same place on the political spectrum of loads of other lefties but I don't have an identical stance to any of 'em because I think for myself and have an independent mind and a separate brain and a different vocabulary and my own style. This is a load of fluff from three of you to cover up for the fact that bobad is ignorant about the two newspapers. Monday to Saturday, Guardian. Sunday, Observer. Different title, different editor, different style, different typeface, different journalists, differ t sections, no G2, different columnists, distinct and proudly so and always has been. There is no Sunday Guardian. He simply didn't check (so what's new?) Easy-peasy!

And don't be so bloody rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM

I can only seem to get into to Mudcat on my iPhone this morning, hence the typos. I'm going boggle eyed here!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

"You quote the results of a poll and are not prepared to let us know how the results were arrived at and you are not prepared to comment on the question that was asked?" - The Gnome

As I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the poll in question I haven't got the foggiest notion how the results were arrived at - you prat. The "Campaign Against Anti-Semitism conducted the poll so maybe you should direct your questions to them. The Commons Select Committee obviously seemed to think the poll and it's results valid enough to quote them in their report to the House of Commons - good enough for me.

The question asked on the other hand was simple enough to understand to anyone with even basic English comprehension skills.

On the "Sunday Guardian" thing. As the Observer occupies the same political stance each Sunday as the Guardian does throughout the rest of the week, then "Sunday Guardian" seems to me to be an accurate and a very good way of describing the Observer - so good and so accurate in fact that I think I will adopt it just to annoy Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:44 AM

Shaw: You never have anything to say.

But you sure like reading and responding to the nothing I have to say, so what that tell us about you........lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:00 AM

OK - So we have no idea how many people were asked or when and where it was taken so we do not know if the poll is actually a significant representation. But let us leave that for now and move on to the question.

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

This does not ask if the parties in question are more or less antisemitic that any others. So it in no way negates my point that the Labour party is not likely to be any more antisemitic than any others.

However, seeing as it is now acceptable to quote surveys without looking at how they were taken or whether the sample is representative I need to report the results of a recent survey taken about Mudcat posters. The question asked was "Who is most likely to show his arse off Blackpool tower?" the results were

- 87% responded affirmatively to Teribus
- 49% for Ake
- 43% for Iains
- 40% for the Bobad
- 37% for the Keith A
- 13% for the Steve Shaw

Who would have thought it, eh? I don't know how it was arrived at but the Mudcat (very) select committee anti-arse showing accepted so it must be true.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:34 AM

"THE" Steve Shaw, eh? I like it! Usually get called THAT Steve Shaw!

You won't annoy me, Teribus, ever. In fact, you may have started a trend. If the Observer (obvious, accepted and universally-recognised name) can become the Sunday Guardian (millions of people now scratching their heads in puzzlement), then maybe I'll start telling people that I live in Dumnonia. How are things up there in Deira, Dave? Fings ain't wot they used to be like in Aelfwine's time, eh?!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:43 AM

"But you sure like reading and responding to the nothing I have to say, so what that tell us about you........lol."

Well I have the good manners to read your links and respond to them. In the last few days you've done little except make unhappy sniping little remarks. Join the Iains-and-Teribus club, neither of whom seem able to post without including an insult or two. It makes you look incredibly foolish, which saves the rest of us a job I suppose!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:46 AM

Your poll of course is nonsense as the truth is that nobody showed anything off Blackpool Tower and we both know that.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism did however conduct a poll asking people - "Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

The result (Of a real poll Gnome) was that:

- 87% responded that they thought the Labour Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 49% thought the Green Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 43% thought UKIP were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 40% thought the SNP were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 37% thought the Liberal Democrats were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 13% thought the Conservative Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour.

Wonder what it was that made those polled think that? The poll sample by the way was 1,864, their campaign started in 2015, same year as Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:55 AM

Ahhhh. OK. Just short of 2000 people then. Not a significant sample. Wonder how they were picked? I also wonder about something. Mainly why it was timed to coincide with Corbyn's leadership. Still, may or may not have a bearing. What does have a bearing, and I note that you do not address the issue, is that the question posed does not ask whether there is antisemitism. Funny thing that.

What do you mean no one showed anything off Blackpool tower? The photo you promised arrived the other day and it does seem to be you. You mean it was not? Why would you lie about something like that? I have now forwarded it to ake seeing as he seems to have a fetish about such things.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:16 AM

About normal for most polls Gnome.

Why would you lie about an none-existent photograph?

What makes you think it was timed to coincide with anything?

IIRC Corbyn was elected in May 2015 the CAA report into anti-Semitism wasn't published until October 2015. When was it that the Co-Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club resigned again and what events led to that resignation would have naturally preceded the resignation. That resignation prompted the Royall Enquiry into the OULC, which in turn led to the Chakrabarti Enquiry into the Labour Party. Irrespective it would appear that the CAA poll was spot on the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:29 AM

So, did the poll conclude that antisemitism was more prevalent in the Labour party than anywhere else?

You are just not getting into the swing of this Blackpool tower business are you? It was you that first mentioned the photograph -

By the way Gnome the incident you mention might have been that time in the summer of '75, I could send you a glossy 10x8 of it if you like.

So, you say you could send me a photograph and I play along with that. You then deny there was one! How could you? :-( Some will be bitterly disappointed.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 11:05 AM

Based on a brief overview it seems to me that Steve is taking the high ground to the annoyance of a few.

Beyond the unwashed public's private and personal opinions of Semitism or Anti Semitism there is an issue that involves the most forbidden subject in the US. It is Top Secret and Israel fucked it all up. Back then it was codenamed Olympic games. It has gone further in operation nitro zeus. It is about cyber war with Iran. That war is currently held at bay in part due to the American Iranian Deal.

The Obama Netanyahu feud was about stuxnet betrayal and not merely settlements.

If you are uneducated to these realities, and I don't blame you, but I would refer you to the film 'Zero Days' for deeper view of the issues at hand that we are forbidden to discuss in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM

"87% responded that they thought the Labour Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;"
Given the massive campaign instigated by the people opposing BDS, it's surprising that the percentage isn't higher
The gutter press must be losing its edge
That same survey also finds that 45% of British people believe at least one stereotype of Jewish people is true, one in four believe two stereotypes and 17% believe three stereotypes.
2015 saw the largest rise in antisemitic crime recorded ever recorded in Britain with a rise of 26% in antisemitic crime and 51% leap in violence against Jews
It would be totally stupid to ignore the fact that this rise coincides with the massacres that were being reported from Gaza nightly on on our television screens.
There can be no other reason for that rise.
Implicating the Jewish people as a whole in Israeli war crimes is bound to have a detrimental effect on the safety and well-being of the Jewish people as a whole.
If you believe it to be antisemitic to criticise Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians, then equally, you must believe it is the Jewish people who are responsible for Gaza.
Just like "love and marriage", as the song says, you can't have one without the other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 12:38 PM

"Beyond the unwashed public's private and personal opinions of ......... (Whatever)

There you go Donuel - that is the attitude of the "liberal" Democrat elite that won Donald J Trump the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Three people on this forum have proven themselves to be liars:

1: Yourself
2: Steve Shaw
3: Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:26 PM

"Three people on this forum have proven themselves to be liars:"
Prove it - and didn't you miss the supreme one - your friend Keith
You don't overburden yourself with accuracy either with your edited and unlinked cut-'n-pastes.
You are trolling with the best of them now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:51 PM

Prove it

He has, many times, do keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:07 PM

I expcted on troll to back another
As I said to him - prove it
I don't tell lies - you people are such eejits that I don;t have to
A least I don't dredge up filth from fascist sites like The Whitte Supremist then deny having done it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
your sole argument that they are not common because "I've never seen one" is as mindless as it gets,

Nor has anyone else except you Jim!
How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

Considering your dishonesty before the rule change, I would suggest that you are the last person on earth to call anyone else a liar, bobad. I may make mistakes, Teribus, but I don't tell lies. I don't see the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:35 PM

Steve,
"with an identical political stance"
Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

Opening sentence of "Observer" Wiki page, which Observer will have written,
"The Observer is a British newspaper, published on Sundays. In the same place on the political spectrum as its sister papers The Guardian and The Guardian Weekly"

Up your "big fat bottom" I think Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:46 PM

Dave,

OK - So we have no idea how many people were asked or when and where it was taken so we do not know if the poll is actually a significant representation

No, but Parliament will know all of that and Parliament considered it a reliable source of information.
They had no reason to doubt its reliability. What reasons do you have?

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

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

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

THE WHEATCROFT SAGA

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering your dishonesty before the rule change,

No dishonesty whatsoever - another whopper from Shaw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:D tG

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

DtG

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

Bobad, your cheating was confirmed by the mods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, rather, you need spectacles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...🤡

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

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

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

❤️😍😻💋👨‍❤️‍👨🌼🌈💝❌❌❌

💤

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

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

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

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

💤

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

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

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

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

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

Hi Dave

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

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

Cheers

Mike

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

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

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

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

:D tG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobad - 💤

Teribus - 💤

Keith - 💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤

❌

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

Shaw - 💩💩💩

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

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

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

:D tG

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

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

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

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

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

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

Far better than boring old politics any day!

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

Bugger...

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

Guardian columnist 14 hours ago,

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

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

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

💤🖕💤

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

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

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

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

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

Nice diversion tactics though.

DtG

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

Boris is in DC today. Stiff upper twit gentlemen.

Condolences for lives lost near Parliament.

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

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

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


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

I.e. winning elections!

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:42 AM

I am in a minority in thinking that the current government is not doing a good job? A pretty large minority I should think.

What frantic preocculation? I hope you can come up with some evidence that I have a frantic preoccupation with anything. Otherwise I think we can assume it is another one of your misrepresentations.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 06:55 AM

"Who is trying to force him out of office?"
Don't be stupid Keith - this is what it has been about from day one
The right may have failed in this particular battle but it doesn't mean that they are not still at war
They want the same old same old Tory policies because that suits their own personal positions - and crooks lik to Watson head the pack
"That is your view, but it is a minority one."
It is a fact - no industry, a loss of a say in the workplace, a rapidly widening gap between haves and have nots, an unstable economy
People do not vote for this, they vote for what will suit them in the present circumstances - go look at those who take no part in the elections and don't vote at all - only 66% voted in the last election - the party that got by far the majority of votes is the "you are all a shower of bastards and I wont vote for any of you Party"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 07:30 AM

Dave,
I am in a minority in thinking that the current government is not doing a good job? A pretty large minority I should think.

Why do you think that? What evidence?
You are ignoring the evidence of recent by-elections where there was a swing to the Tories which is almost unheard of for a governing party mid term.

What frantic preocculation? I hope you can come up with some evidence that I have a frantic preoccupation with anything.

Yesterday you posted on this political thread,
"That was probably the one I remember, Raggy. Some cars on our street were damaged. We had a Reliant Supervan III at the time - Just like Del boy's but in turquoise rather than yellow. Being fibreglass it suffered no dents :-)
Far better than boring old politics any day!"

You have posted ad nauseum on off topic trivia in what Steve says is a tactic to drive political opponents away. That campaign has become increasingly desperate and frantic in recent days on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 07:36 AM

Jim,
They want the same old same old Tory policies because that suits their own personal positions - and crooks lik to Watson head the pack

Why call Watson a Crook? All parties have wings and factions which push for policies that suit their own position. That is normal politics.
What is going on in Labour is not normal.

As the Guardian columnist just said, "Does anyone inside Labour have any idea how ludicrous this all looks?"

Do you Steve, or are you still pretending to be asleep?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 07:49 AM

"Why call Watson a Crook? "
Because he was forced to tender his resignation forr fiddling his expenses
Because he aworked for a foreign power to smear his Party
Take your pick
"What is going on in Labour is not normal."
Who wants "normal" as things stand at present
Why not address the situation as it stands instead of putting up meaningless media quotes
Your historians now appear to metamorphosed into press journalists
Do they sell their papers in "real" newsagents?
You and your mates have been quick enough to dismiss or ignore the Guardian when it doesn't say what you want it to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 07:55 AM

Not taking us to hell in a handcart, Keith? A blundering Tory idiot who is now history, who was certain that he could win the referendum, has managed to get us bundled out of the EU on the back of a pack of lies. In nine months the pound has collapsed, inflation is roaring ahead, there's no prospect of pay keeping up with it, there's talk of removing the triple lock on old-age pensions (which are among the worst in the EU already) because there's no money to pay for it, leaving millions of pensioners vulnerable to inflation, the NHS has gone in a few short years from the best it's ever been to a complete basket case, we can't afford care for our elderly any more, millions have been forced into bogus "self-employment" or zero-hours contracts, productivity is shite, there is no prospect of a decent trade deal with the EU or anyone else, half a million Brits in the EU are living on drastically-reduced pensions thanks to the collapse of the pound and there's every prospect that their pensions will be frozen and that they'll lose the reciprocal healthcare agreement, millions of EU citizens living here, people who we sorely need to keep the NHS, care services and agriculture afloat, feel threatened by the new hostile-to-foreigners atmosphere, the Scots may well be on their bikes, nobody seems to have given a thought to the brexicated bloody mess that would be visited on Northern Ireland...the handcarts are parked in a long row outside the house, Keith, but all you can do is look upwards out of the top half of the window and see the sunshine and the fluffy white clouds. You always were good at missing the point, weren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 08:00 AM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 08:34 AM

Jim,
Because he was forced to tender his resignation forr fiddling his expenses

Most MPs did that, so no more a crook than most.

Because he aworked for a foreign power to smear his Party

Did he? That is a most serious charge that you have just made up Jim!

Steve, those may be your views, but few hold them according to all recent polls and by-election results.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 08:49 AM

The evidence of people on the breadline and those relying on food banks. The evidence of the less able bodied in despair because their benefits have been slashed. The evidence of the NHS and schools in disarray because they cannot manage on their reduced budgets.

And Keith, there was absolutely nothing frantic in the post you use as an example nor is mentioning an event that had already been discussed a preoccupation. I take it it was another one of your misrepresentations that we can ignore.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 09:44 AM

Jim
Because he aworked for a foreign power to smear his Party

But you denied believing that on 8th December,
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government"
THat was not my claim - you are lying again"

Dave, there is no evidence that your views are shared by more than a small minority and poll and election results that are evidence they are not.

You have posted extensively here and on other political threads about the weather and nature, but on the current "Spring" thread devoted to the weather and nature you have not posted at all.
That tells me that you are not truly interested in talking about such things, it is just a tactic to stifle discussions you do not like.
That tactic is becoming increasingly desperate and frantic, as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 09:57 AM

My "views" are they, Keith? They are facts! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM

That tactic is becoming increasingly desperate and frantic, as I said.

That is not what you said at all. You said "Nothing is stopping you criticising the government except your frantic preoccupation with trivia." You accuse me of not making myself clear and then you change your words so they have a completely different meaning. Very dishonest.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

On the other subject I really could not give a shit how many people my views are shared with. I have no need to go for the populist vote but I do actually care that people are suffering needlessly.

Now, can we get back to something interesting instead of your usual linguistic bollocks?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

Update on Lister Park in Bradford - Crocuses are all gone only to be replaced by daffodils. When they have gone it will look like plain grass. How do they do that, Steve. You will know. Are there just hundreds of bulbs below the grass that flower in the spring? When they are gone and the grass is mowed, how come it seems just like grass and is not full of bald patches? Or is it and I am too far away to notice?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:18 AM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:37 AM

Crocus corms and daffodil bulbs sit under the surface in a dormant state in summer. It's an adaptation to hot, dry conditions or the lack of light in dense woodland when the trees are in full leaf. It's called aestivation, sort of the opposite of hibernation. In spring the leaves build up a food store. Crocus leaves are fine and narrow and grass grows in between, so there isn't much of a bare patch when they die back. Daffodil leaves will leave a temporary bare patch if the daffs are growing in big clumps, but the grass soon spreads back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:39 AM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 11:08 AM

The daffodils and croci are similar to the labour party. Here today and likely gone tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 11:09 AM

Yes, I know poobad. Treat them with plenty of manure...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 12:15 PM

Dthe G. It might work for plants but I fail to see how yet more Sh*t can help labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 12:34 PM

Dave,
You said "Nothing is stopping you criticising the government except your frantic preoccupation with trivia."

Nothing is stopping you criticising other parties, but all you want to do is discuss nature, but not on the thread about such things.

Far better than boring old politics any day!

Then why go on politics threads and avoid nature threads?
You do it to try to stifle debate that does not suit you.
It is just a ploy, and an increasingly frantic and desperate one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 12:51 PM

"But you denied believing that on 8th December,
No I didn't -I did not say they were Loyal to Israel - I said they were using Israel's call for BDS to unseat Corbyn
It may well be that they believe Israel to be right, but your distortion makes my suggestion that they were working for them
Crooked pricks like Watson work only for themselves - that is where their loyalties lie.
Stop distorting what I say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

Another glorious day out on the Connemara, brilliant sunshine, nicely warm and more music tonight in a fabulous pub. Myself on Guitars my good lady on Concertina and Bodhran and a mate on various Melodeons. Lots of Guinness, whiskey and hospitality. Who could want more !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:23 PM

Humph. It's been peeing down here all afternoon and it's damn nippy. Still, it's alleged that spring is on its way!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:31 PM

Much better than regurgiating the same old line that is prevelant from some boring old farts of the right wing on here.

Dead from the neck up and the naval down, as my old man used to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:31 PM

Rag, if that was really what you and Dave wanted to discuss you would be on the "Spring Is Here" thread.

You just want to prevent debates you can't win.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:42 PM

Can we get one thing straight here Keith
I don't tell lies - I have told no lies on this forum ye you ahve accused me of doing so many dozens of times
You have never caught me out in a lie - you have dishonestly resorted to responding to everything you ahve no answer to as claiming it to be a lie - that is the spineless little creep you ar.
If you call me a liar again I will trawl through this forum (the way I did with Teribus''s insults) and I will put them up - every time you have denied not saying something than had it put up again and have gone on to defend it - you lie consistently by denying things then you prove yourself a liar by defending it all over again

This is typical of your lying behaviour
I have mut up masses of documented evidence of the Traveller signs - from civil rights groups, from councils, from writes writing about Travellers, from groups like The Runnymede Trust..... dozens and dozens of examples of these signs - even to the Weatherspoons case - and still you write
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"
What about all the people whose evidence I put up.
You are the liar here Keith - you have now become a habitual liar
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR AGAIN - I DO NOT TELL LIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:45 PM

And before you ask me for an example of your lying - I've just given it
Explain that one away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:45 PM

And before you ask me for an example of your lying - I've just given it
Explain that one away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM

Hi Dave

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

LOL......oh so that's what it were; I thought it were snow cos it weren't half slippy to walk on.

If I'd known it were tripe I would have taken some home. My old mum loved tripe and onions,,,,tripe cooked in milk.

It pissed down all day yesterday so I put out a jug....thought it might be raining Robinsons' Mild...

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:32 PM

My mate Mike used to work near the tripe works in Monton. When I asked him how he coped with the smell he said it was Ok and he was down to only throwing up twice a day - Honestly!

I love tripe too - the real stuff, not what you get on these threads :-) Mrs G does in in milk with onions as well. She has also been known to cut it in strips then batter and fry it - Also very nice but very messy to do. Not had Robbies mild for yonks. I was never keen on the light but the Robbies dark in the Queens Head in New Mills was to die for.

Keith - You do it to try to stifle debate that does not suit you.
It is just a ploy, and an increasingly frantic and desperate one.

No I don't. That is an unsubstantiated allegation.:-D As to You just want to prevent debates you can't win. Well, firstly, don't kid yourself that I would want to debate with you but, if I did, it would not be on here. As has been pointed out this is not a debating forum, it is a discussion forum. Debates have rules and you break every one of them. If it were a debating forum you would have been banned years ago.

We just try to bring a little cheer to your otherwise mundane and tedious threads and you even complain about that. Sad.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:44 PM

Read my lips and an awful lot of other people's lips once and for all, Keith. WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE. You do not get to dictate what we chime in with and I suggest you don't even suggest it. If you don't like it, complain to the mods and see where it gets you. The reason we do what we do is that your postings are in turns boring, repetitive, one-sided, hectoring, tedious, negative, lying, pointless and interminable. There is no end to any of it, Keith, and it poisons the air around here. We are leavening the bread, Keith. You simply steamroller the flatbread even flatter.

Yes------WE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:05 PM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:50 AM

Jim,
Can we get one thing straight here Keith
I don't tell lies

You do, and usually about me.
Just recently you stated that I "defended" signs barring travellers.
I do not, never have and never would. You lied. You did not and could not quote me doing it.
They are not common, and I am glad of that.

This is typical of your lying behaviour
I have mut up masses of documented evidence of the Traveller signs - from civil rights groups, from councils, from writes writing about Travellers, from groups like The Runnymede Trust..... dozens and dozens of examples of these signs - even to the Weatherspoons case - and still you write
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"

Not lying Jim. You can not expect me to deny the evidence of my own eyes to believe your claims. You don't even live here.
In my life I have never seen one, nor has any Mudcatter except you, so they can not be "common throughout Britain."
You are wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:58 AM

Dave,

Keith - You do it to try to stifle debate that does not suit you.
It is just a ploy, and an increasingly frantic and desperate one.

No I don't. That is an unsubstantiated allegation.:-D

It was substantiated by Steve who admitted that it was a ploy to stop discussion.

Steve,
WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

Sadly, no-one can stop you, but I will criticise your behaviour as much as I like and will not be bullied into silence by you and your little gang.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:11 AM

Keith - How on earth does Steve saying that he does something confirm that I do it for the same reason? You really have lost the plot here.

BTW - I have an apology for you. When I said I would not want to debate with you it came across as quite harsh. Sorry if I offended you. I would be more than happy to discuss wild flowers, weather, holidays and all manner of things with you. Just not religion or politics.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:50 AM

Dave, much as I love those things, they do not make for stimulating discussion.
If I did want to talk about them I would not do it on a completely unrelated thread just to impede that discussion.
Do explain why you need to do that if not for the reason Steve does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:13 AM

"You do, and usually about me.You do, and usually about me."
Prove it Keith - produce those lies - any moron can make such an accusation
Each time I have called you dishonest I have specified what you are being dishonest about
I've just given you an example
Ypou said I am yhe only person holding the view on Traveller signs yet I have given yuo massive documented proof that they are common and wides pread
What is that if it is not a lie
It dowesn't matter two farts which of the handful of Mudcatters hasn't seen the signs - I have and so havve thiose who wrote and campaigned on the issue - are we/they all liard because half a dozen people who have had no dealings whatever haven't seen the signs
A stupid, dishonest and very agenda-driven response on your part
The person who did see a sign, you dismissed as a troll and a liar because by the time you googled the pub it had been removed -- as happens with these signs when travellers move on.
"You don't even live here."
This is a mind-numbingly stupid, response to something that has detrimentally affected an entire community
I have lived in three of Britain's major cities and I have worked with Travellers in six - and in smaller towns - I saw the signs, I experienced our being refused servive in pubs - I even included a photograph of the sign in the notes to our CD
I do not lie - if I have, produce your examples.
The same with your claim that prominent people backed up your claimn of a cultural transplant - a hundredfold lie on your part
You have never produced a quote of anybody doing so, you have refused to link to the examples you claim you have put up, and when I sak you nowm, you will refuse to do so again
PLEASE LINK ME TO ANYBODY WHO HAS CLAIMED THAT MUSLIM CULTURE HAS IMPLANTED THE TENDENCY FOR ALL MALES TO DESIRE UNDERAGE SEX
Failure to respond to this request will confirm that the many dozens of times that you have made this claim have all been lies.
You have lied and distorted throughout aour arguments, the reason being that your aim has never been to share ideas and experiences, but to win arguments - I once counted up the number of times you have claimed to have "won" or we have "lost.
You are apparently the only individual on this forum who does that.
Now - let's have those "implant"quotes, if you have not been telling lies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:38 AM

Do explain why you need to do that if not for the reason Steve does it.

I already have, Keith, on a number of occasions. I suspect that you do not read my posts properly. It is to lift the mood of the thread. And I do not need to do it. I want to do it. Please be more careful in your choice of words.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:45 AM

So Dave, you take it on yourself to choose what the mood of the thread should be, and then disrupt the discussion by swamping it with off topic posts.
I find that deplorable.
I would criticise such dictatorial behaviour from anyone.

Jim, a recent example of you lying was your claim that I defended the signs when I do not and never have. You lied.

Did I say "Ypou said I am yhe only person holding the view on Traveller signs." ?
The only person in the country or the world? I can not claim to know that and I do not believe I claimed it. Please quote me.

I did say that on or off Mudcat I have never found anyone else who has seen one, and that is proof that they are not "common throughout Britain" whatever you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:55 AM

I find that deplorable.
I would criticise such dictatorial behaviour from anyone.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to not really give a shit about them.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 01:48 PM

"your claim that I defended the signs when I do not and never have. You lied."
To deny them and to claim I made them up and to refuse to exept the documented evidence of their widespread nature is to defend them - as I said, you lied.
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"
I take it as you are going to ignore my request to be linked to your "implant" witnesses, you are accepting that you lied about that one too??
That'll do nicely, thank you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 03:57 PM

It's been another glorious day out here on the Connemara. Last night the music was superb with my mate and his grandson on Melodeon. The young lad is just 15 an a fantastic box player just like his Grandad. It was a VERY late night, or a very early morning, not sure which and far too much Guinness ........... if there is such a thing!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:18 PM

"The young lad is just 15 "
Plenty of time to grow out of the melodeon and take up a real instrument then!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:25 PM

Jim,
To deny them and to claim I made them up and to refuse to exept the documented evidence of their widespread nature is to defend them - as I said, you lied.

I do not defend them. I am glad that they are extraordinarily rare if they exist at all.
Malarial mosquitos are not common here either, and I do not defend them either. You lied.

I take it as you are going to ignore my request to be linked to your "implant" witnesses, you are accepting that you lied about that one too??

No Jim.
I did not and do not lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:27 PM

if they exist at all

You may note, although not really care, that never in my argument with Jim on this did I ever say that they did not exist. I have no reason to doubt that you have never seen them, Keith, as I have not either, but I have no reason to doubt Jim either. He has seen them and spoken to many people affected by them. Why can you both just not accept that both are telling the truth and both are right from their own point of view? Is it so difficult?

Maybe we should just stick to music. Although, Jim, looks like you have declared war on melodeon players :-)

What do you call perfect pitch? Tossing a bodhran in a skip without it touching the sides.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:50 AM

I made my position clear on the old 2013 thread.

"I do not claim there is not a single one.
That would be silly.
Someone could go out with a pad of Post It notes anytime.
But, the signs are not "common throughout Britain."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 03:54 AM

But you did just question whether they do exist, Keith

if they exist at all


If you do not claim there is not a single one, why question why they exist? Just wondering like!

Glorious weather here today. Downside is it means I will have to now the lawn.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 03:57 AM

""I do not claim there is not a single one."
You called my a liar and you said I had invented them
You lied and you continue to refuse to respond to the reports from charities I have put up
"I do not defend them. I am glad that they are extraordinarily rare if they exist at all."
And you continue to do so, despite those reports - comparing them to malarial mosquitoes is lying when you have been given full information of their existence.
That is straightforward lying Keith, whichever way you paint it and doing so is defending one of the most common and widespread prejudices - ostracisation - against Travellers today - as one of the reports say, "the last acceptable form of racism in Britain"
So there we have it - you have lied about not defending these signs and you continue to lie about your invisible army of "implant" experts.
THere seems very little need for me to look out any more examples of your dishonesty - that lot is enough to sink the Titanic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:11 AM

I have not claimed they do not exist, just that they are not "common throughout Britain."

If they exist, they are very rare indeed or we would have seen one.

Jim, I said you lied about me and you did.
You claimed I defended the signs when I do not and never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 06:56 AM

"If they exist, they are very rare indeed or we would have seen one."
The fact thay you have not seen one meas SFA
The fact that you call into question their ecxistence and choose to ignore the information putt before you makes you both bigoted and dishonest
Why won't you address the information that has been put up (rhetorical question - it is because if contradicts your bigoted opinion and stops you from winning points)
And still no "implant" quotes
Are you happy with the examples of your dishonesty you requested?
Suppose not!!
Go away Keith - I think we're well and truely done here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:03 AM

I remember such signs in Manchester in my youth,nowadays they read things like "NO HOBBY CARAVANS" this is because of the prevelance of Hobby Caravans amongst the travelling community. People cannot stick up signs saying "NO TRAVELLERS" without risking sanction but in saying "NO HOBBY CARAVANS" they do not run that risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Pardon the ignorance of a Yank, but what on earth is a "HOBBY CARAVAN"??

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:28 AM

Incidentally I have just got back from a drive out this morning. Glorious sunshine once again, my good lady took a photograph of the temperature gauge in the car it read 25 degrees !!

The Broom in full blossom, gorgeous shades of yellow and orange, lambs abound, the loughs and the sea a stunning variety of blues, azures and greens. Fabulous, utterly fabulous.

We collected some coral and shells so I can make some jewellry tomorrow.

Music again tonight, it will be another late one, I might leave the bar early .............. at 3am !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:06 AM

The fact thay you have not seen one meas SFA

Of course it does.
Unlike you I live here and always have.
If they really were common throughout Britain I would have seen one.
So would Dave.

The fact that we, and everyone else, have not seen one means they are not common throughout Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

"Of course it does."
How does it - and your spiteful reference to where I live means nothing but that you are a spiteful little man who is running out of excuses for his bigotry
We worked with Travelers for thirty years - in London, in Birmingham, in Norfolk, in Liverpool, in Bristol and in Manchester - to name just some cities - not in a small town in the arsehole of rural England
The bulk of Travellers nowadays are city dwellers
You are quit happy to spend your as much of your life persecuting Travellers as you are Muslims - anybody who can't hit back is the motto of people like you
Squalid, squalid, squalid little man
And please stop using another member of this forum to back your nasty little campaign - it shows you as even nastier
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:53 AM

Jim, I really think you should take a break from Mudcat, your posts are full of anger and not good for the health of a senior citizen.

You are beginning to become obsessed by personality rather than the issues....your last post addressed to Keith is a typical example and I am sorry to say your arguments are becoming more and more incoherent. No one here thinks these signs were "common" I have never met anyone who has seen one and I live in an area where "travellers" are relatively common.

You showed the same incoherence in your support of the conspiracy theory, that housing agencies were deliberately making their tenants the target of violence and verbal abuse.......why on earth would such agencies invite attacks on their properties or their govt supported tenants?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM

Hobby are a German built, top quality caravan, the Rolls Royce of Caravans and as such are much desired by the Travelling community.

It is very rare to see "No Traveller" signs in this day and age but at one time such signs were commonplace. Watch documentries regarding the 50's and 60's for confirmation.

Due to some advance in our society, but more I suspect because of wishing to avoid prosecution, such signs are no longer displayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:27 PM

"Jim, I really think you should take a break from Mudcat, your posts are full of anger a"
And your spinelessly spiteful hit-'n- run posts are full of dishonesty
Min=d your own business if you are not going to take part in this
Keith is a racist - I though all socalists hate racism and oppose it whenever it shows its head - you seem happy to support it
Piss or get off the pot - Keith is capable of trying to apply his own censorship
I assume that you are referring to your support for making refugees wear yellow-star like identification long after the world had recognised it as a dangerous and degrading practice.
Your deliberate distortion of my objecttopn of this raciist programm,e is trpical of the distorted world you live in
I did not at any time claim "hat housing agencies were deliberately making their tenants the target of violence and verbal abuse" - that is a blatant and rather stupid lie. I said that the violence and vernal abuse (THAT WAS TAKING PLACE, INCIDENTALLY
) was the end result of adopting such an obscene scheme
oNLY RACIST SCUM WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A MOVE AFTER IT HAD BEEN SHOWN AS BEING DANGEROUS
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:38 PM

"t is very rare to see "No Traveller" signs in this day and age "
Not you too, for crying out loud Raggy
We were photographing them into the 1990s and those photographs are arhived with the rest of our collection
Thet were still common in London and Bristol up to the point we stopped recording Travellers in 2005 and were still to be seen in the latter a feew years ago when Pat and I had to search the suburns of Bristo when we visited a group of Travellers
Family members of Travellers we recorded that we are still in touch with are still reporting them as common in Cities like Bristol and London and organisations like Runnymede Trust and anti racist groups are still trying to get them removed
This becomes ludicrous - do you have any grounds for claiming they are no longer common other than you haven't seen them?
How many Travellers have you people associated with to make such a claim?
Madness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:05 PM

So would Dave.

The main reason that neither you nor I would see them Keith is that we would not be looking for them. We are not travelers. It does not affect us. You may be different but I tend to forget things that are irrelevant.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:06 PM

BTW Jim - The same would go for Raggy. He is not a traveler either so the signs would mean nothing to him. Callous it may be but that is how people work. Well, it is how I work anyway. There are too many things that demand my attention anyway without taking on more!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:12 PM

Jim, I am of the opinion that there are no "racists" among the registered membership here.....we are all reasonably intelligent, most of us are capable of submitting and attempting to defend our views....I have come to know Keith quite well over the years and he is certainly not a racist. You have fallen into the trap of labelling people with whom you disagree as evil, to excuse yourself for the lack of a plausible argument.

If you wish to be taken seriously by people like Keith or Teribus, ranting and raving does your cause no good at all.

Calm down and you may be able to find common ground.....I know that I have done so in the past by refraining from nasty insults and personal abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:28 PM

If you wish to be taken seriously by people like Keith or Teribus

Why the fuck would anyone wish that on themselves?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:36 PM

"Jim, I am of the opinion that there are no "racists" among the registered membership here."
THen you exlain Keith's claim taht all make Pakistani Muslims are implanted culturally to have underage sex
Is that not racist in your book?
You have yet to explain your own persistence in suggesting that forcing asylum seekers to wear identificatoion tags after it has been foung to de dettrimental to their safety
Is that not racist?
Don;t know how much evidence you fellers want to prove signs barring travelers from being served in pubs and shops
Here's a sample from 2004 to the present day, if you don't wish to take my personal experience as evidence

Jim Carroll


"Commission fro Racial equality examines treatment of gypsies
The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has visited two gypsy sites as it launched a review of how travelling communities are treated.
The CRE is investigating how local authorities respond to their needs and what facilities have been set up.
Trevor Phillips was at east London sites in Hackney and Newham.
The review was launched after Gypsy and travellers' groups complained about councils' treatment, especially in planning, site provision and eviction.
Mr Phillips recently said: "Great Britain is still like the American deep south for black people (was) in the 1950s.
"Discrimination against gypsies and travellers appears to be the last 'respectable' form of racism.
"It is still considered acceptable to put up 'No traveller' signs in pubs and shops and to make blatantly prejudiced remarks about Gypsies and travellers. "
A CRE spokesman said: "Many public bodies, including local authorities have a legal obligation to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good race relations.
"This applies to all racial groups. CRE is keen to establish the extent to which local authorities are meeting these obligations in relation to gypsies and Irish travellers.
The organisation said the information from the scrutiny exercise will be used to produce guidance for local authorities.
It will set out what they should be doing in relation to gypsies and Irish travellers, to meet their statutory race equality obligations, and giving good practice examples
2004

The ASA took advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who had undertaken specific work into the issues affecting Gypsy and Traveller communities.
2014
The EHRC said research had shown that Gypsies and Travellers (which was the appropriate term when referring to those groups) were often subject to suspicion and disapproval because of negative public perceptions which in turn led to members of the community experiencing prejudice and harassment. They said, although racism from members of the public towards most ethnic minority groups was now widely viewed as unacceptable, it remained persistent and common towards Gypsies and Travellers and was generally seen as justified and the last "respectable" form of racism. The EHRC said they continued to receive complaints about 'No Travellers' signs.

Mark Willers QC (2016)
Ethnic Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers, Scottish and Welsh Gypsy Travellers are all entitled to protection from discrimination under our equality legislation. However, despite the fact that such legislation has been in force for decades and has developed considerably to protect against increasingly subtle forms of discrimination, Romani Gypsies and Travellers still experience discrimination of the most overt kind. By way of example,
2012
"Bosses apologise at 'no travellers' sign at Blackburn Ice Arena"


2012
Conn Mac Gabhann is the Manager of the traveller project at the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain.
When my mother came to England in the 1950s to work as a nurse, the signs on the boarding houses said 'No Blacks, No Irish.' She described it as normal.
You couldn't get away with putting up signs like that now.
That's what I thought. Or really, what I thought was that nobody, even if they were racist, would be stupid enough to erect signs like that and attract the attention of the police.
I was wrong. And I was wrong on two counts. Firstly, because there are people stupid enough to put up the signs. Secondly, because I assumed that the police and the CPS would pursue these people under race relations legislation.
Before Christmas, I was walking up through a back street in north London when I noticed a pub that had a sign that read 'Travellers strictly by appointment only.'
I thought it was a mistake, so the next day I went back to the pub with my colleague Joe. The signs were there alright – three of them making it clear that Travellers weren't wanted.
Even though I've heard a lot of racism towards Travellers, I was surprised that in multi-cultural London a sign like that could remain in the open for some time. We took photos and reported the sign to the police, who promised they would investigate.
I went to the police station and made a long statement, stressing the seriousness of the crime. I made the point that such racist incidences prevent Travellers from getting legal work and getting on with their lives.
I stated that when there are signs like that it's not surprising that many Travellers in prison point to discrimination in schools and society as one factor that put them on the path to offending.
I stressed that, like everybody else, Travellers have a responsibility for their own actions. But I added that whenever Travellers as a group are singled out for unfair treatment it just means this section of society feel unjustly treated. Then everybody loses.
It is in the interests of the police and society that they pursue these cases of discrimination, otherwise Travellers will rightly feel aggrieved and disconnected.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub.

Hackney 2010
"Yes. Like going to pubs you see the sign "No Travellers", if you're having a wedding they won't give you a function room if they find out you're a Traveller. When you're walking on the street sometimes you get racist remarks". "Sometimes. Like the other day my children were being called trailer trash, but what's interesting to me was the week after the programme on Traveller's weddings on television they got some status in school. It's interesting how people can change their point of view if they're given enough information". "Sometimes. I suppose it's like every group, some people do look down on you. When you have to tick the box I used to put "other" and then write Traveller in but it's good to see they've got a "Traveller" box now, I always tick that…I have to make a point of ticking it 'cause that's who I am". "Yes and no…sometimes when you read the papers it puts you down so low…it's hard …but in Hackney in my day to day life no I don't". "Some place will have "Travellers By Appointment", so they cover their own backs without saying "No Travellers"
"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:38 PM

Dave,
The main reason that neither you nor I would see them Keith is that we would not be looking for them.

But you said you did see a travellers welcome sign in Britain.

"I can only re-iterate what I have said before. In my experience such signs are not common. I have neen in a lot of pubs, all over the country for many years, and the only one I have ever seem in respect of travellers was in the Morning Star, Wardley, Mancheter which said 'Travellers Welcome!'"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 03:56 PM

"But you said you did see a travellers welcome sign in Britain."
Desperate nonsense - one pub welcomes them - we knew dozens that did over thirty years - largely the run-down ones that didn't get muchg custom elsewhere.
One particular pub in the Eat End welcomed them because the elderly Jewish couple who ran it said they recognised the discrimination against Travellers as similar to their own experiences.Resdpond to what has been put up - lies, made up by me (as you have already claimed) - what?
You have documented proof and all you ahve to offer is that you haven't seen one
Pathetic and racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:13 PM

I did, Keith, and there was a good reason for that. Somehow you failed to mention one other thing I mentioned in respect of that occasion. my Uncle had close dealings with the travelers themselves I wonder why you omitted that relevant fact this time when you had posted it before? You are so selective with your memory of these things and it is blatantly obvious. Dishonest is the best word to describe it.

Mowed the lawn and trimmed the hedge earlier. Lovely day for it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:14 PM

I drove the 270 miles from Richmond in west London back to Bude non-stop this evening. At my age I shouldn't be doing things like that, but, though I was totally knackered before we we'd even set off, and got caught in the mother and father of a snarl-up in the roadworks around Kew Bridge, just for once my eyelids didn't droop treacherously once the whole way. We got home at 10.15 and we've had salted almonds, crostini crackers, cherry tomatoes and manzanilla olives with lemon and coriander, washed down with Grillo (white) and Nero d'Avola (red) from Sicily. We have a gorgeous grandson in Richmond and we are deliriously happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:48 PM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM

Dave,
So now you claim not to notice such signs because you are not a Traveller!
No doubt you would also drink in blissful ignorance beneath a "no blacks" sign because you are white.
You would be oblivious to no Jews or Irish signs.

That would be shocking if it were true, but of course it is not.
A sign barring any ethnic minority would be so out of place that no-one could fail to notice it, and a man like you would do something about it too.

You have sacrificed your honesty to support another member of your little leftie clique.
A different, and grubby morality.

You were telling the truth earlier.
If those signs were really "common throughout Britain" one of us would have seen one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:35 AM

Yes, I was telling the truth earlier and, as before, you are ignoring the relevant section of what I said

I have no doubt that you are right, Jim, and to travellers who do see the signs they are more common than they should be.

Why do you keep missing that bit out I wonder? As to 'supporting another member of your little leftie clique.' I point you to the next bit of that same quote

But that is no evidence whatsover to say the signs are common. I know you will never agree but I believe that this is all Keith is trying to put across.

So, how does that support Jim? If you look at the two parts together you will see that I am giving both sides of the argument and both are only part of the picture. You are dishonest with your selective quotes and as long as you keep doing do, I shall keep pointing it out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:41 AM

Looks like a lovely day here again. Not got as long a journey as Steve but popping over to Manchester to see Mother. 80 and bit miles round trip. Been asked for tea by son number 2. Well, Mrs G has seeing as she is his Mum but I am sure he will feed me too :-) Chance to see the grandsons as well. May even get back in a bit of light seeing as the clocks have done strange things this morning!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:52 AM

I'm curious Keith
Exactly why do you refuse to respond to the masses of information that has been put pup rather than moronially repeating W"they can't be common because I haven't seen one"?
Do you really hate Travellers and have a disregard for their rights that much?
Do you think the people who wrote those articles were lying?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:17 AM

Dave, you stated,
The main reason that neither you nor I would see them Keith is that we would not be looking for them. We are not travelers. It does not affect us.

You would have to read it to know it barred Travellers.
It would affect you if it barred people of Polish descent, but if it just barred Travellers or blacks you would ignore it and move on, THEN FORGET YOU HAD EVEN SEEN IT!

Tacit acceptance of racism. That would make you a bigot, and you suggest Rag is the same.

I do not claim no single sign exists, so I can not call anyone a liar, but if they were really common throughout Britain one of us would have seen one.
And remembered it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:34 AM

Blimey. Remind me to remind Keith of this jolly little diversion next time he tries to force US to stick to the thread topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Still getting the wrong end of the stick, Keith, and playing the racist card to obfuscate the issue. Purposely I suspect and on your sabbath too. The point I am making is that there are two sides to the story. The one that you and I do not see because it does not affect us and the one that travelers do see all the time because it affects them directly.

I do not claim no single sign exists, so I can not call anyone a liar

Errr, so, what about "if such signs exist at all" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar". Porkies as well as misrepresentation. You will never get though them pearly gates at this rate. Off to church with you and I hope they do confessions!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:47 AM

Found mushrooms when I mowed the lawn yesterday, Steve. I don't know enough about them to try eating them but they looked OK. The more I think about the more I am determined to get rid of the damned leylandii and replace when with a trellis and climbers of some sort. Trouble is, there is a whole eco-system of spadgers in there. I think they nest more in next doors privets but they use the leylandii as an extension for guests :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

WAnd still you refuse to respond to the articles and statements put up Keith
You have no case until you do
Are they lies?
Have I made them up
Why won't you respond to them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 09:21 AM

I do consume a number of species of wild fungi, when I'm cast-iron certain of their identity. The only one of any size I can think of at this time of year would be St George's Mushroom, but it's probably a few weeks' too early for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 10:06 AM

WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

And there you have the reason why this forum is in the state it currently is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:02 AM

Smallish brown capped mushrooms with thin stems. The tops look a little like chestnut mushrooms but they are too small. Quite a lot of them and in the relative open but sometimes shaded area of the lawn. They don't look anything like the St Georges one.

Cheers

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:30 AM

You guys have Morels over there in Blighty? They're the only ones I dare mess with as its impossible to mistake' em for anything unfortunate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:35 AM

Yet another glorious day out on the Connemara, people sitting in the sunshine in the market square enjoying the warmth and a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 11:35 AM

Could be fairy ring mushroom if it's on your lawn. If it's Marasmius oreades, it's delicious. Cut the stalks off. If it isn't, you may die.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:45 PM

Dave,
you and I do not see because it does not affect us

Nonsense! Such a sign would be so outrageously unacceptable and provocative that I would certainly notice it and do something about it, and I do not believe that you or Rag would be any different.

My statements that you quoted, "if such signs exist at all" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" are not claims that no signs exist, which I do not claim and never have.

I do claim that the signs are not "common throughout Britain" because if they were it would not be just Jim who has ever seen one!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:49 PM

Blimey. Remind me to remind Keith of this jolly little diversion next time he tries to force US to stick to the thread topic.

Jim raised the issue by lying that I had defended the signs.
If he would stop making false accusations against me, I would immediately stop rebutting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:53 PM

I can accept that it may not say that they do not exist. How are you going to explain away the apparent contradiction between " I can not call anyone a liar" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" then?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:01 PM

Right, but just never ask me to stick to the thread topic ever again, Keith. Got my grass cut today. Good drying east wind made it possible. Damned hard work though. I've caught the sun. How daft is that! Lasagne with tomato, rocket and red pepper salad tonight, olive oil and balsamic dressing. Garlic bread. Prosecco and a bottle of aglianico from Vesuvius. As they say oop north, I could quite happily be miserable living like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:02 AM

Wonder why this has not been as widely reported in the popular press as when Labour lose a seat?

Historic win for Britain's Labour in City of London elections


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:21 AM

Dave,
apparent contradiction between " I can not call anyone a liar" and "no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar" then?

No contradiction intended. I do not accuse Jim of lying about this, he is just wrong, but he does tell lies.

Anyone could write such a notice anytime so I would not claim none exist, but that could well be the case.
They are illegal so it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble.

I do claim, with great confidence, that they are not "common throughout Britain" or one of us living here would have seen one.
We still haven't Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM

Re local elections in City.
Your link was to Reuters, perhaps because so few papers and no broadcasters covered it.
Just the Indy (on line only) and the Financial Times.
Where was the Mirror and Guardian?

Perhaps this from the Indy adds some perspective to the "historic win."

"The Council has historically been dominated by independent councillors as the main political parties have tended not to field candidates in City elections.
However, Labour routinely contests some wards and in today's election the party increased its representation from one to five.
The remaining 95 seats were taken by independents or candidates with no party description.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-city-of-london-election-vote-independence-jeremy-corbyn-a7649221.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:58 AM

"but he does tell lies."
prove it Keith
I have given you your examples Kewith - now you give me mine
"Jim raised the issue by lying that I had defended the signs."
You are defending the signs by dismissing them as being as rare as Malarial mosquitos and doubting their aexistence "if they exist at all".
You have been given masses of information on them which you simply refuse to respond to or acknowledge
In doing this you are defending them dishonestly
Respond to the evidence Keith or accept you have been exposed as a liar and a bigot
PRODUCE THE LIES YOU SAY I HAVE TOLD OR ADD THIS ACCUSATION TO YOUR OWN LONG LIST OF LIES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:15 AM

perhaps because so few papers and no broadcasters covered it.

Did I not pose the question as to why it had not been covered? We really do speak a different language.

An increase from 1 to 5 seats is massive increase in anyone's books.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:29 AM

Jim,
You are defending the signs by dismissing them as being as rare

No. I am stating a fact that they are not common, and I am not alone in that. I do not defend them and never have or would.

I did not compare their rarity to malarial mosquitos, I made the point that recognising something is rare does not constitute defending them.

Now, if you were not lying again, quote me actually defending those signs.
Good luck with that liar.

Dave, yes you did make the point about coverage.
The fact that even Left Wing papers and broadcasters ignored it suggests they do not think the "massive increase" from 1% to 5% so significant, or "historic."

They were not up against the other parties for a start, so it is a very unusual kind of election.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

"it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble."
From the evidence you have chosen to dishonestly ignore Keith]
"It is in the interests of the police and society that they pursue these cases of discrimination, otherwise Travellers will rightly feel aggrieved and disconnected.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM

Nonsense. An increase from 1 to 5 is 5 times as many by anyone's reckoning. . I don't think that has happened elsewhere.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:42 AM

I am just the messenger Dave.
It is the Guardian, Mirror and BBC who have dismissed it as not newsworthy.
Well, all the media except the Indy and FT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:47 AM

When I said "Guardian" I was of course including the Observer too Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

So, in answer to the question I posed at the start of this part of the discussion - Wonder why this has not been as widely reported in the popular press as when Labour lose a seat? - Your answer is that the media did not think it was newsworthy? Yet it is newsworthy when Labour lose a seat. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? Does it not underline the point that the media are only interested in discrediting the Labour party and/or Corbyn? As you seem to be?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM

"When I said 'Guardian' I was of course including the Observer too Steve."


💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM

💩💩💩

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:41 AM

I think that Reuters misjudged the significance of the City election, and the UK media got it right.
I watched Corbyn on Peston yesterday, and they did not think it worth mentioning either.
The real local elections are next month. How do you think Labour will do Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:51 AM

Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."
Jim Carroll

Bullshit if ever I heard it, why the police in Islington would refer and report on the matter to some delusional "bampot" parked out on the West coast of Ireland I haven't the foggiest notion - do the Met run everything related to alleged discrimination cases past you do they Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

Yet another glorious day here on the Connemara, the last two days have seen a profusion of yellow primroses blossom, they are ubiquitous along the hedgerows and verges, such cheerful blooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:48 AM

I honestly fear for Jim's sanity. Maybe time to ease up a wee bit Mr T?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

There is a very obvious reason for the Islington police to contact Jim regarding this and that is that he is the person to have made the initial compliant. The complainant is told the result of the CPS deliberations.
Given his interaction with the travelling community it would seem a logical assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 12:59 PM

We had 18⁰︎C here today. Glorious. Ate too many chips sitting outside Rosie's Kitchen in Bude at lunchtime so we went for a long walk down to Bude canal then back along the cliff path. We heard two skylarks - first this year! Celandines and primroses in huge drifts, blackthorn in full bloom, chiffchaffs and robins singing their fierce courtship rants (aka beautiful birdsong), black sedge flowering along the canal, all senses engaged, all things universal...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:14 PM

How do you think Labour will do Dave?

Why ask me? Do I look like a pollster?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:23 PM

I can top that Steve, we went for a drive round the Aughrus Peninsula (very beautiful area) the temperture did not drop below 19 degrees, far warmer in sheltered spots. The last I fear for a few days though.

Spring in springing out all over the place, lambs, foals and calfs in many fields ............. it's good to be alive.

A stunning guitarist last evening, and I mean really, really stunning. With any luck, if I can stand another night out, there will be even more music tonight !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:27 PM

Was dull most of the day here but the sun has come out again now. Just found out we are having the grandsons some of next week so hope to spend some time with them around the countryside. 'Adventures' they call them and who am I to contradict :-) Took the eldest up to Lund's tower and Cowling pinnacle last Easter so it's the youngest's turn this time. He has his priorities right and has already picked what he wants on his sandwiches :-) If he manages that OK I may take them both round Ingleton Waterfalls over the weekend. Should be a lot more flora around than when I last went in February!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:57 PM

"Bullshit if ever I heard it"
You've been given the link - from a clergyman
Have you people nothing to offer yourselves other than denials and the support of out tame homophobic racist?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 02:11 PM

THEER YOU GO YOU BUNCH OF MORONS - COMPLETE WITH PHOTO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 02:44 PM

Anything so say about my sanity Ake?
No?
Thought not, you spineless little creep
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:32 PM

Well, got 4 answers right on university challenge tonight. White, the Peak district, the Yorkshire Dales and I have forgot the other! Anyone remember a contest back in the 70's I think, where Salford disgraced themselves good and proper. Or did I imagine it? It was the 70's after all :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:40 PM

"Or did I imagine it?"
You did not - that was a defining moment fr the North
I got nine tonight - I always astound Pat with my interplanetary and biblical knowledge - all down to my wasted youth reading Asimov and watching Life of Brian
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:42 PM

Now watching Mary Berry and getting hungry looking at the food! She has just made a lasagne type dish with aubergines but I missed what it was called. Looked delicious:-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 03:57 PM

Did Mary just say 'wok could be easier' in reference to a stir fry?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:10 PM

What a bizarre coincidence. Night in watching TV and on the tablet if you hadn't gathered. Flicked over to "Foyle's War" and the background is Jewish student talking about the Palestinian issue and being attacked by fascists! Set just after WW2. Churchill just described as a "Jew lover". Serendipity?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:29 PM

Got three of those recipes printed out. Mrs Steve is a genius with the wireless printer. Definitely got more than nine, Jim, including all three bonus ones on works of art. Tough do tonight, though. Semi-finals can't be made too easy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:58 PM

I am humbled. Or is it humbugged?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:20 PM

Thirty years ago to this day (the 27th (I may be a few minutes late!), we had been in our current house in Cornwall for six weeks. That day, we had the most ferocious wind we'd ever experienced. It stripped dozens of slates from our roof, wrecked the guttering at the front of the house and demolished our 18'x12' greenhouse. Having been used to town life all our lives, we were too scared to go outside that day. Roof slates were flying everywhere! A bloke who was a teacher at my new school, who I hardly knew, spent a whole day helping me to pick up broken glass from the greenhouse. Some of it was fifty feet away. He's a lifelong friend now, his eldest son being the same age as my son, then in the same class at the local primary school. I still find bits of glass in my garden from that event.

We had fixed up the buildings insurance but hadn't even paid the first premium, but they still paid up! We had more wind damage in the October 1987 storm, the Burns Day Storm in 1990 and in another big blow two weeks after the Burns Day Storm. Since then, some entertaining storms and a few slates blown off, but nothing like in them good ol' days!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:59 PM

This from faithful "little Sir Echo":
Raggytash - 27 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

"There is a very obvious reason for the Islington police to contact Jim regarding this and that is that he is the person to have made the initial compliant. The complainant is told the result of the CPS deliberations.
Given his interaction with the travelling community it would seem a logical assumption."

Then all becomes clear when Jim produces the link from the "Left Foot Forward" website FFS!!

"Yesterday [28th February, 2012], I [Conn Mac Gabhann] received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."

So Raggy, Jim had absolutely S.F.A. to do with this. His contention that today in the UK Anti-Traveller Signs are common has to be backed up by a single instance from Five effin' years ago. By the way with your posting record I would suggest you refrain from using the word logical about anything you assume.

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

Go to bed, Bill. The nurse will start fretting very soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:10 PM

Jim Carroll - 27 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

"it would just take an anonymous call to the police to get one removed and the perpetrator in a heap of trouble." - Keith A presumably.

From the evidence you have chosen to dishonestly ignore Keith]
"It is in the interests of the police and society that they pursue these cases of discrimination, otherwise Travellers will rightly feel aggrieved and disconnected.
Yesterday, I received a phone call from Islington Police Station. The CPS have decided not to pursue any action against the pub."
Jim Carroll

What link Carroll??? There is no reference to date 29th February 2012, no reference to the "Left Foot Forward" website and no reference to Conn Mac Gabhann. Your post reads as though the incident happened recently (It didn't), and that you had received a call on the 26th March, 2017 from Islington Police Station (You didn't) - If that isn't total misrepresentation Carroll I do not know what is. Having said that though Jim it is up to par with your usual line in total bollocks (To use the term as defined by Steve Shaw).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:39 PM

Total bollocks. Total football. Johann Cruyff. Let's all get total!

Jaysus, Bill, go to bed. We don't want you waking up dead in the morning. I'm off.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 03:44 AM

"There is no reference to date 29th February 2012, "
The date is there, if you bothered to read the posts that were put up, a larger version of the article was included - what you obviously picked up on was my reaping the statement in response to Keith suggesting that putting up signs would lesd to police action - the repeat and your cut-'n-paste are both in quotation marks - has nobody ever explained what they mean?
"25 Mar 17 - 02:36 PM "
I put up a whole series of examples of these signs being referred to
No - I didn't link to any of the quotes on that occasion - but they are all there and totally ignored by you pair of racists - Kieth has refused even to acknowledge they exist.
All are perfectly traceable - I thought i had linked to them all as I usually do.
As you refuse you qualify any of your statements, produce no links whatever and just make things up on the spot, you have little grounds fro complaint.
Now - you have the statement, you have another photograph and you now hane dozens of examples - here an on previous threads, of these signs
Ihave plenty of personal experiences of police behaviour towards the Travellers - thirty years worth.
"Five effin' years ago"
This argument has been going on for a few years - Keith is claiming that these signs are rare because he has never seen one.
J D Weatherspoon's was successfully sued by Travellers less than two years ago
I didn't realise that there was a statute of limitations on this discussion
Signs against Travellers, beggars and itinerants are part of a long history going back centuries and they continue - and your name-calling arrogance proves only that you are a bullshitter with no evidence to show they don't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:20 AM

Jim, that piece was written by Conn Mac Gabhann, Manager of the traveller project at the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain.

He would be highly aware of discrimination issues involving Trvellers, and must have been working with them for some time.

He found a sign in one back street London pub and expressed surprise to see such a thing. He had clearly never seen one before, and in the absence of a more recent outburst he has not seen one since.

That proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the signs are an extreme rarity, and not "commom throughout Britain" as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM

Dave,
How do you think Labour will do Dave?
Why ask me? Do I look like a pollster?

I do not know what you or pollsters look like.
I do know that you take an interest in such things, as witness this discussion, and thought you might have formed an opinion on Labour's
current popularity.

Leading opposition parties usually do well in such elections, but I fear that Labour this time will not.
That is my non pollster's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:45 AM

"He would be highly aware of discrimination issues involving Trvellers, and must have been working with them for some time."
In other words he knew what he was talking about because he knew Travellers and worked with them
You do neither and you don't see the signs - I wonder why!!
This is the first time you have responded to a single piece of evidence on this subject, and that is to dismiss it out of hand
You have no comment that despite your claims that anybody putting up signs would be "in a heap of trouble" - the police did nothing
You are making unqualified assumptions on one case and still refusing to comment on the rest
You area a racist, you have always been a racist and you always will be a racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

"That's what I thought. Or really, what I thought was that nobody, even if they were racist, would be stupid enough to erect signs like that and attract the attention of the police.
I was wrong. And I was wrong on two counts. Firstly, because there are people stupid enough to put up the signs. Secondly, because I assumed that the police and the CPS would pursue these people under race relations legislation."
From the same article

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 05:52 AM

I do know that you take an interest in such things, as witness this discussion

A passing interest. No more. Far more interested in things that matter like food, drink and the beauty all around us than in discussing politics with people who will never agree and who speak a different language.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:15 AM

Butter Pie for us tonight, a recipe I learnt from my Grandmother.

Thinly slice and softly cook onions, par boil sliced potatoes and when cool layer them up on a pastry base, potatoes, onions, salt pepper, butter, potatoes, onions, salt, pepper, butter and finally potatoes, cover with a crust and bake.

Grandmother did it because it was cheap, I do it because I love it.

I suppose the addition of a touch of cream or creme fraiche could enhance it but my Grandmother was a fantastic cook and if the original was good enough for her it's good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM

Jim,
"He would be highly aware of discrimination issues involving Trvellers, and must have been working with them for some time."
In other words he knew what he was talking about because he knew Travellers and worked with them

Yes, and in all his life he only saw one sign.
Conclusive proof that they are not "common throughout Britain!"
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:36 AM

"Yes, and in all his life he only saw one sign."
Does he say that - must have missed that one.
You have had masses of information and you nit-pick on someone who reportd seeing a sign to the police who, contrary to your excuse, did nothing bout it.
Your only defence of these signs is that yo have never seen one - pathetic even by your pathetic standards.
The longer you continue defending these signs, the more you confirm both your racism and your dishonesty in claiming you are not defending them
You lie whan you claim you are not doubting their existence - what is this if it is not casting doubt on their existence "If they exist at all"
Or comparing them to malarial mosquito
This is the second thread on which you have defended this racist shit - you produced nothing but "I haven't seen one in the past and you have produced nothing now
Face it Keith - you are a bigoted racist and one sick cookie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:50 PM

"Yes, and in all his life he only saw one sign."
Does he say that - must have missed that one.

You missed this.
"You couldn't get away with putting up signs like that now.
That's what I thought." ....until he saw that sign.
That makes it clear and obvious he had not seen one before.

You have provided conclusive proof that such signs are not "common throughout Britain" as you stated.
Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:54 PM

He goes on to say,
"I was surprised that in multi-cultural London a sign like that could remain in the open for some time"

It is not his experience that "No Traveller signs are common throughout Britain."

He was "surprised" to see one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:59 PM

"That makes it clear and obvious he had not seen one before.!No it does not
He is a prison chaplain for Travellers - he is bound to be aware of them
He merely expresses his surprise to see one openly displayed in central London now thet=y are illegal - a relatively new thing
Nowhere does he say he has never seen one - you made that up
Your whole defence of these has been a confused string of lies from start to finish
You say you are not denying that they existed yoe you write
"How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?"
If you don't deny them why accuse me of making them up?
You are a squalid racist Keith - Travellers are only one of your targets.
Nasty little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:13 PM

I refer you to signs saying "NO HOBBY CARAVANS"

Thankfully today people would be prosecuted if they displayed a sign saying "NO TRAVELLERS" although given that the CPS choose not to prosecute in the case cited by Jim that is not guarenteed.

Simply saying "NO HOBBY CARAVANS" is sufficient to deter travellers from trying to use a site but stays within the law.

Same meaning just different wording.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:33 PM

The tricjk has become 'Travellers by appointment only" THere's a sign saying this to the notes of our Traveller CD on Musical Traditions)
Another is not to refuse them entry but to ignore then when they try to buy a drink
In Bristol, they put the signs inside the bar so they can't be sptted outside
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:49 PM

Whatneeds to be remembered here is that because of the acute shortage of stopping places in Britain most Travellers live on the fringes of the law and rely on keeping a low profile because they are forced to camp illegally.
It is highly unlikely that Travellers will report discriminating pub landlords to the police for fear of drawing attention to themselves being stopped illegally - it is this that maked the Weatherspoon's case both unique and groundbreaking
Pretending that these notices don't exist really have repercussions far beyond being refused service.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:22 AM

Keeping a low profile and not drawing police attention to yourself also becomes quite essential when you are engaged in human trafficking and slavery too Jim.

By the way Jim, if you put those signs up on your CD cover doesn't that make you as guilty as the landlord?

If the sign "Travellers Strictly by appointment" did not result in a prosecution by the CPS then it surely cannot be illegal. It is still the right of the Licencee to serve who he wishes to serve as he/she and he/she alone is responsible for his/her "house" being orderly.

I think the only signs ever seen restricting who could go into a pub concerned people wearing "team colours". Never ever seen one concerning Travellers - so not so common at all then Jim, and Keith's logic in relation the Traveller's priest is flawless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 03:14 AM

Jim,
Nowhere does he say he has never seen one - you made that up

It is ludicrous to suggest he had seen other examples and not mentioned it in that article.

If they really were "common throughout Britain" we who live here would have seen one.
We still haven't.

Rag, I doubt that travellers haul their caravans behind them to the pub.
"Hobby" is just a large German manufacturer of large caravans. Your signs refer to sites. Recreational sites are not all suitable as stopping places for travellers who will often want to run their businesses from the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 03:22 AM

If the sign "Travellers Strictly by appointment" did not result in a prosecution by the CPS then it surely cannot be illegal.

The CPS can decide not to prosecute for any number of reasons as I am sure you know.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM

You are making a meal of this Keith and refusing to respond to all the other articles -proof enough of your obsessive and dishonest hatred campaign in support of one of the most common forms of prejudice againt Travellers
Your mate joins you in attempting to smear Travellers with the actions of one criminal Traveller family
AArguing with you pair conjures up a pictire of hooded man and burning crosses.
Youa are a pair of blatant racists - and people with some authority on the forum wonder why I argue with you!!
The pair of you make me sick
Jim Carroll
This - from a review of our double album of Traveller songs by Geoff Wallis, issued bu Musical Traditions - the review is sitll available on their site

"It may be 2003, but the window of a pub just a couple of hundred yards from my front door still carries the sign 'Travellers by Appointment Only' and they don't mean salespeople from the snacks industry. In many other ways, however, the lives of Irish travellers in England have changed substantially since Jim Carroll and Pat Mackenzie made these recordings of their songs and stories between 1973 and 1985 (with the assistance of Denis Turner). As the collectors note, the ready availability of the portable television was already sounding the death knell for the fireside gatherings at which many of these songs were passed on."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 05:18 AM

Jim,

You are making a meal of this Keith and refusing to respond to all the other articles

No need. If they really were "common throughout Britain" we who live here would have seen one.
We still haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 05:23 AM

As you claim not to be a racist, can I assume that you dissociate yourself from Teribus's attempts to smear the Travelling community with the actions of a criminal group?
No?
Thought not!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:01 PM

Sorry Jim but it was you who suggested that they adopted a low profile wrt the police because they knew they were acting illegally - NOT ME.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:27 PM

"Sorry Jim but it was you who suggested that they adopted a low profile wrt the police because they knew they were acting illegally -"
And I specified exactly why
You are a racist twat and I'm grateful that you put this discussion into context
Must contact Fred West's neighbours and tell them they are all serial killers.
Mustn't keep you from your cross burning
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 03:06 PM

Jim, you are over-reacting to an ironic reference to Travellers being over-represented in recent slavery cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 03:40 PM

"Jim, you are over-reacting to an ironic reference to Travellers being over-represented in recent slavery cases."
You are a pair of racist scumbags and I'm grateful for the opportunity of showing you what you are
Bye---eeee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:59 PM

A Tale of Simple Traveller Folk

On reading stuff like this one wonders if the Old Testament didn't have it right. The punishment I'd hand down to these animals (Believe me read the article and you will find that to refer to those arrested as animals actually insults animals) would be a term of 20 years (No Remission) with the condition that they be held together in conditions identical to those they held their captives and that they be worked as ruthlessly and relentlessly as their victims were for absolutely no reward at all. Additionally I would seized all their assets which would go towards compensation payments to their victims.

Very true that the above linked article names only four people, however it details a similar number of sites described as "Traveller Sites" - Every single Traveller living on those sites would have had knowledge of exactly what was going on and as they permitted it to continue (Over a 20 year period at least) they, in my mind are as guilty as those arrested. By NOT acting and doing what they must have known to be RIGHT they make themselves guilty by association.

The estimated number of people in the UK being held and treated in the conditions described number between 12,000 & 15,000. It is an absolute f**kin' disgrace, pity the likes of those such as Traveller's Priest Com Mac Gabhann couldn't tear himself away from searching for pub signs that some might take offence to, to address a real problem!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 04:16 AM

Jim,
You are a pair of racist scumbags

Same old Jim, resorting to vacuous name calling because you have no answer or actual argument to make, except "Bye---eeee"
Nothing racist has been said here by anyone.
None of us who live here have seen a single one of those "common throughout Britain" signs in our lives.

Re Labour Party,
Today is Livingstone's suspension hearing over alleged anti-Semititism.
And,
Telegraph 28 March 2017 • 8:23am
"The Labour party have lost 10,850 members over the last four weeks, official party documents have revealed."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:25 AM

"Keeping a low profile and not drawing police attention to yourself also becomes quite essential when you are engaged in human trafficking and slavery too Jim."
"Nothing racist has been said here by anyone."
There you go
One seig heiler describes the Travelling community as human traffickers abd slaveers - the other says it isn't racist to make such a claim
What more can a girl ask for - the start to a perfect day!!
Two racists wiith one stone
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:58 AM

No "claim" Jim, those named in the article posted were all tried, found guilty, convicted and jailed. The "traveller Sites" they operated from were not solely inhabited by members of this family. You tell me how on a small site with people living on small pitches you would completely miss out on the fact that your next door neighbour kept 22 people locked up in a filthy caravan, or unheated container, without washing or toilet facilities for essential human hygiene. And they reckoned that this had been going on for 20 years at least!!

The only "racists" here are the Travellers who deem themselves to be above the law who think they have a "right" to get away with this sort of shit and yell discrimination whenever criticised.

As for Father Con Mac Gabhann we all know how good Roman Catholic Priests are at looking into transgressions committed by their own and their own flock don't we. Possibly 15,000 vulnerable people in the UK being ruthlessly exploited as slaves and being kept in inhumane conditions is nothing compared to signs in pubs that by all accounts appear to be rarer than "Rocking-horse shit" that might, just might, cause offence. Think as a self-proclaimed humanitarian and committed "socialist" Jim you want your priorities recalibrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 06:43 AM

See the "Great Leader" has spoken about his support for a "United Ireland" referendum in Northern Ireland based on Brexit. Good I'm all for it, pity that Jezzer doesn't realise it might not lead anywhere as he appears not to have realised that if the result of that referendum in Northern Ireland was for unification, then there would be a second referendum in the Republic as to whether or not they would accept union with the North and the result of that referendum at the moment would in all probability be NO (The Republic of Ireland at the moment just could not take on the running costs of the North).

While he would appear to be all for such a referendum in Northern Ireland Jezzer is dead set against a second independence referendum for Scotland at the moment, he backs Theresa May in saying that any such referendum should only be held after Brexit has been negotiated. Again I totally agree with him.

BBC coverage of the announcement on triggering Article 50 last night was tremendously "Remoaner" biased particularly in Scotland. I found it incredibly strange that no-one seemed interested in explaining the time lines involved. They were discussing things as though things would happen immediately:

29th March, 2017 Article 50 triggered means that the UK will be out of the EU 18 to 24 months hence - so that takes us to 28th March, 2019 before an Bill could be introduced to grant a second independence referendum for Scotland.

The last one granted took just over two years between the Act and the actual referendum so the earliest a second Scottish Independence Referendum could take place would be the summer of 2021 by which time Scotland would definitely NOT be a member of the EU, Scottish businesses (Less than 1/5th of them) who trade exclusively with Europe would have made what adjustments were required to stay in business or market elsewhere between Spring 2019 and summer 2021, while the remainder of Scottish businesses would have been carrying on as normal trading with the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. The electorate of Scotland would not have to listen to the SNP's ludicrous and fantastic claims of "how life would be" as they all did between 2012 and 2014. The result of a second Scottish Independence referendum in the summer of 2021 would IMHO be a resounding NO to independence, but for arguments sake let us imagine that it was YES.

Scotland would have to create it's own currency, or adopt one over which it would have absolutely no control. The SNP Manifesto position is that they firmly back Scotland joining the EU - That after all is this major change that wee nippy keeps stating is the basis for this new referendum. Fast tracked it would take Scotland somewhere between 5 to 10 years to gain entry and membership of the EU and it would have to adopt the Euro as it's currency. So an independent Scotland would become an EU member sometime in the summer between 2026 or 2031. Immediately on joining Scotland would put 65% of it's businesses at risk and suddenly find itself not independent at all because it would have to comply in all respects with the EU that will exist in 10 to 15 years in the future NOT the EU of today - a great deal can change in 10 to 15 years and such change may well not be for the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:01 AM

Travellers in Scotland are not a "race", most of them are from the same stock as myself, but are regarded as a "Special group" due to their chosen lifestyle.

The "special status" accorded to these people has resulted in their encampment moving beyond the law, having to be closed under the pretext of refurbishment and the inhabitants moved to social housing in this area.

Families in this encampment were involved in serious crime which I have documented on other threads. The "special status" allowed this activity to continue unhindered and the police were unable to carry out their normal procedures in fear of discrimination charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:04 AM

Thanks for confirming you racism that te Traveller communitry are slave owners and people and Keith was lying when he claimed you were being "iroonical" - all I needed to confirm the motivation for your argments about Travellers here.
To blame an entire community for the crimes of a tiny handful of criminals is racist and to suggest that they kenew what was going on is totally without basis - and no court or no newspaper or media commentator has ever made such an accusation.
To suggest that a priest who has dedicated his life to help Travellers should find something better to do is racist.
You are a racist scumbag and so is Keith for defending you.
The reason that you never saw these common signs was probably because you were too busy looking for Traveller sites to firebomb - that appears to be the type of people you are.
The four (FOUR) criminals were convicted of illegally detaining workers - not of "slavery" or "people trafficking" - that was the racist spin invented by the gutter press and taken up by racists like yourselves.
Half a million Travellers were exterminated by the Nazis, who used arguments like yours to carry out their mass killings.
You accuse a few of us on this forum of having a "team" - take a look at your own nasty little pack - A pair of openly declared racists with Travellers, Muslims and Irish in their cross-hairs, Ake, who, when he isn't persecuting homosexuals and asylum seekers, is defending Trump the Fascist in the White House, and Bobad, who spends his time hysterically implicating The Jewish People by pinning the crimes of the Israeli regime on them.
All you need is a uniform and an insignia.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:11 AM

The blame of course lies in the application of "Special status" to any minority grouping, not to the majority of travellers who in general behave reasonably well.

Just one of the negative effects of "liberalism".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM

"Travellers in Scotland are not a "race", "
THey may have not been designated a race yet, but DMA tests in Britain have found them to be a genetically identifiable group going back at least a thousand years - the British establishment have yet to get their heads around that fact
Ironically, Travellers living around British cities have been residents in their territory for centuries longer than the newcomer commuters who spend time and energy trying to drive them out.
Ireland has an appalling record of treatment of Travelers, but a couple of months ago it took the first tottering steps to rectifying it by officially announcing in Parliament that Travellers were an ethnic minority
Their lifestyle is not "chosen" (another racist misnomer) - it is one Travellers have been born into for many centuries.
Up to relatively recently, Travellers have been an accepted and essential part of rural life - 'modernisation' has left them in limbo.
They no longer have a protection afforded to them by the Caravan and camping laws which were repealed in 1994 by John Major, they are constantly being moved off unused sites, attempts to make their own sites, like Dale Farm are met with prejudice and hostility, and many Travellers who attempt to settle have been driven out by people who don't want than as neighbours
The woerfully inadequate (in every way) Traveller homes all little more than walled ghettos
Basically, most travellers are deprived of electricity, clean water, sanitation and the right to educate themselves or their children.
Their life expectancy is considerably shorter than that of the settled community.
Nice to have you here Ake - all we need now is Bobad for a full house
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:02 AM

Jim,
you racism that te Traveller communitry are slave owners

It is true of some, and not racist to say so. They have been massively over-Represented in recent convictions for slavery.

To blame an entire community for the crimes of a tiny handful of criminals is racist

It is but no-ne has.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:03 AM

Hi there Jim, care to fill in some of the gaps?

When was it that I have ever tried to fire bomb anything again? Lead such a busy and eventful life I must have forgotten. As you stated the following - "The reason that you never saw these common signs was probably because you were too busy looking for Traveller sites to firebomb." - You had best have proof of that Jimbo, as throwing those sorts of unfounded accusations about can get one into trouble these days. Oddly enough though I do recall why I have never seen any of those signs you keep wittering on about. It is because, counter to what you claim, they are NOT really all that common at all, in fact if they exist at all they are extremely rare.

By the way Jim, can you tell me the significance of a drawing, sketch, cartoon or painting in which a mouse, or a rat, with a knot tied in its tail appears?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:12 AM

"It is true of some, and not racist to say so."
iIt is inaccurate - none of the four were convicted of keeping slabves - or did I maiss something
It is racist to use the actions of four criminals to smear an entire community - as you well know, having had that pointed out to you over your Muslim claims
T=eribus did just that and you defended him for doing it - making you both racist scum
It hasn't taken too long to move from "I didn't see the signs so they can't be common and are an invention of "Mudcat's liar, Carroll" to branding Travellers as criminals because of the actions of four criminals, has it?
This is what it has been about from the beginning - you should have said so instead of wasting so much time and effort over several threads.
I really am enjoying this now
Carry on Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:28 AM

Carroll is odd his meds again - have some pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:36 AM

"Carroll is odd his meds again - have some pity."
Full house!!
Perfect
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 10:00 AM

Please excuse his lunatic ravings, he's just having another bad day. Mental illness will do that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:08 AM

"Mental illness will do that to you."
Mada as I may be, I'm running rings around Laurel and Hardy here
I've dragged them both out of their racist closet, one is saying the other isn't carrying on a campaign against Travellers while the other is saying that he is.
Now I've managed to drag out another two trolls from under their bridges, you the antisemite and Ake the homophobic racist Trumpeter - to try and get them out of the hole they've managed to dig for themselves
Not a bad days work really
You want to add anything here, like all Travellers have got enormous penises and lust after our women
That's the level of argument at present
G'arn - make my day!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:43 AM

Jim, on the subject of the firebombing of Travellers Camps it would appear from the examples I have read about, the culprits are "fellow" feuding Traveller families.

Now where is that evidence of me ever having been involved in such an act? Or is this just another Jim Carroll LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

Jim did not claim you were firebombing anyone, he said you were PROBABLY looking for sites to do so.

As someone who is so insistent on accuracy I thought I would point this out to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 01:30 PM

"Jom, on the subject of the firebombing of Travellers Camps it would appear from the examples I have read about, the culprits are "fellow" feuding Traveller families."
There you7 go again
You should cancel the BNP literature you are reading
Firebombing sites is as old as pouring petol though the letterboxes of Muslims
Feuding among Traveller families, what there is of it, is largely confined to barefist fighting (same as happens in yor pubs around closing time - or on any street or city in Britain after closing time)
Serous feuding is extremely rare and is often related to a shortage of
sites)
It hits the media because it's considered a good way to denigrate a minority - siort ofd like Big Far Gypsy Weddings.
Your obvious hatred of Travellers is obvious and, if it is something you don't indulge in, it encourages those who do.
But please keep your racist stereotyping up - expose you both as bigots it's not a bad way to end the day
You pair really need a site meeting to get your story straight - one minute your not racists - next minute this filth.
Wot Raggy says - I don't lie - especially when I describe you as racists
Keep it coming
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 01:33 PM

Jim,
iIt is inaccurate - none of the four were convicted of keeping slabves - or did I maiss something

Yes you certainly did Jim!
The Independent
Headline, "Police rescue three male 'slaves' from traveller sites "

"Three men have been rescued after apparently being forced to live in squalid conditions and work for little or no pay in a new case of alleged slavery on travellers' sites."

"Detectives are investigating possible links to Irish traveller groups on sites elsewhere in the UK, where vulnerable men from Britain and abroad are said to have been kept enslaved in the face of threats of violence."

"The arrests follow a number of cases involving the forced labour of the vulnerable at traveller camps that have gone to court over the past two years,"

"In the first case of its kind, four people were jailed last year after a raid at Bedfordshire site in 2011 revealed the existence of 23 dirty and emaciated men who were forced to work under fear of extreme violence.
A powerful traveller family made money out of the victims who were addicts they picked up from the streets and soup kitchens and forced to work for little money.
In a separate case, five members of an Irish traveller family were found guilty in December last year of keeping their own private workforce in Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire and paying them as little as £5 a day for their work."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-rescue-three-male-slaves-from-traveller-sites-8991784.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 01:34 PM

I think that accusing someone of mental illness on an internet forum should get you expelled. The accuser is generally not a doctor, and, even if he is, he is not the doctor of the person he's accusing of being mentally ill. It's a shabby and immature tactic which marks you out as a loser.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 02:13 PM

"Police rescue three male 'slaves' from traveller sites "


I am sure you will notice that the word 'slaves' is in quotes. I suggest you ask ake about quotes. They mean that the word between them is not necessarily being used in the standard way.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 02:18 PM

Jim's posts in the last few months have become more irrational than usual.....disturbingly so.

Every post contains the same pejorative expressions and charges for which he has no evidential validation.

His latest outrage against Teribus of perhaps being capable of firebombing travellers camps, is fairly typical of a deranged personality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 02:46 PM

Yes, I guess from that side of the fence caring about people and wanting equality for all may seem deranged. Given the choice between someone does care and someone who wants to restrict freedoms for some and opposes anyone bettering themselves I wonder which sane people would chose?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 03:38 PM

""Police rescue three male 'slaves' from traveller sites "
Mor racist newspaper hype - though the er, comes in inverted commas
Go look up an account of the dcharges and tell me how many times the term slave appears
Utterly meaningless newspaper hype and you know it - and racist to suggest otherwise.
These are the crimes of fout criminals - the fact that they are Travellers is immaterial

IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF SETTLED SLAVERY

OR THIS?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/30/migrant-workers-modern-day-slavery
Domestic
http://www.thenews.coop/98851/news/co-operatives/worker-co-op-sheds-light-britains-legal-slaves/
We fill our shops with goods made by workers working in comparable or worse conditions

SUCH AS THESE

OR THESE
OR EVEN WORSE
We are still a nation that thrives on slavery and people like you whine when people from these countries come to Britain to escape the conditions you help create
"Jim's posts in the last few months have become more irrational than usual.....disturbingly so."
And yours become more and more cowardly
I put up backing to what I say
When asked to substantiate your statements you do a rummer
I ask now - substantiate your accusation and let's see what happens
Spineless troll - let's see how fast you run from this one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 03:46 PM

Read his recent posts Shaw, Carroll inserting me into them even though I have not made a single comment on the topic. He has a pathologic obsession with me. It is a mental illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 03:55 PM

As for you saying that it should get me expelled Shaw...........give me a f*****g break already. How often have you seen someone, even a mod, post that someone is off of their meds. You do know what they are implying, don't you. If you think anyone should be expelled I can give you a list of who is most deserving.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 04:53 PM

"He has a pathologic obsession with me. It is a mental illness.
You are one of the gang Bobad - isn't that what you accuse us of?"
If yoiu ccuse me or anybody of mental illness again I shall demand you are removed from this forum
Who the fuck do you think you are - both you and Your homophobic friend
THat level of personal insult makes you the sicko you are
Again - no moderator when you need one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 05:11 PM

You Carroll, and your friend Shaw, can dish it out, ascribing all sorts of lies, distortions and calumnies about others but cry foul when you get back in kind. You are both hypocrites of the highest order and obsessive sickos.

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

By your posts ye shall be known. As the modern day immortal bard writ:

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

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

Not only that, Jim - he's a stalker. Count how many times he's followed one of us around in the last few days only to post something akin to 💩💩💩 and nothing else, or to insult, but NEVER to make anything remotely resembling a debating point. Now he's making accusations of mental illness. He's desperate, Jim - and you've no need to guess what will follow this post. I note that he's cut out the childish "three turd" stuff after I accused him of stalking. Coward. Let him get on with it. I have a PM from one moderator expressing concern about his bad behaviour and asking me to draw their attention to his stalking. I haven't acted on it as yet. It would be nice if the mods saw these threads but I doubt that they bother with us. Pity. Bobad's days are probably numbered here. Just keep letting him have the rope. Matter of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 06:39 PM

I have a PM from one moderator expressing concern about his bad behaviour

As I one of yours Shaw, so fly your flag of self righteousness if you must but I will call your bluff.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:31 PM

No you haven't, and you know damn well that those of us who receive PMs are honour-bound not to reveal them in public. Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up? And haven't you bothered to notice that you get no support whatsoever from your allies when you accuse
people of being Jew-haters, when you accuse people of being mentally ill and when you stalk people with your silly three-turd rubbish? Their silence speaks volumes.

Do feel free to respond. For now, that's my lot. You're a waste of space.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 07:38 PM

Just try me......sucker!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:06 PM

Enough is enough
this is a politically rough and ready forum - that's expected, it comes with the territory and in a way, it can be stimulating.
When people start questioning something as serious as the state of their opponent's mental health is a different ball game altogether.
I don't have a lot of regard of what Bobad has to say - he is not particularly imaginative and tends to just repeat what others put up and confines the rest of his contributions to screeching insults at those who don't agree with him
Ake is a different matter altogether - he has questioned my sanity on half a dozen occasions now, and each time he has disappeared without being prepared to qualify his serious and deeply personal insulting behaviour.
A bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.
If he had a shred of decency, he would withdraw what he has repeated over and over again, and apologise - or qualify his serious accusations with some examples of my mental problems.
I know, and he knows, that if he made such accusations off-line he would be liable to legal action, and if he behaved to anybody face to face he would run the serious risk of a smack in the mouth - nobody in their right mind accuses somebody of having mental problems unless they are qualified to make such an accusation.
He has already had one thread closed of late for his obsessive hatred of homosexuals and it seems that unfair that he is allowed to close another.
He won't apologise of course, nor will he withdraw his statements - he doesn't do that sort of thing.
Nor will he answer any of the arguments on any of the subjects he involves himself in - he doesn't do that sort of thing either.
If he or Bobad ever wade in the gutter with such personal insults again I will ask that they be expelled from this forum - as serious as some of us take these subjects, that is not what debating should be about.
I can put up with Bobad's mindless shrieking of "antisemite" - nobody other than his small circle of friends takes him seriously, and I suspect they find him an embarresment sometimes, but, as I said Ake is another matter, particularly because he takes himself seriously - spooky or what!!
As I said - enough is enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

I don't give a shit, Jim. These people are minnows. Easy enough to deal with, like Teribus. All bluster and no trousers. And nothing to see without those trousers either, poor things. Anyway, I don't suppose you watched Mary Berry this week? She did a recipe with smoked haddock, cauliflower and spuds that I simply couldn't see working. Then I found a goodly lump of smoked haddock in me freezer that I forgot I had, so I gave it a whirl. It was a magnificent dish.

For two. You need:

Half a pound of spuds, peeled weight, cut into 3/4 inch cubes
A pound of smoked haddock, skinned and boned, cut into big chunks
One cauliflower, not massive, cut into bite-size florets
250ml double cream
A tablespoon of cornflower, creamed with a little bit of milk
Salt and pepper
Half a mugful of chopped parsley with snipped chives
100g grated cheese, cheddar will do though Mary goes for gruyere

Get a big pan and boil the spuds in well-salted water for 7 minutes.
Add the cauliflower and boil for another 5 minutes.
Meanwhile, gradually add the cream to the creamed cornflour and whisk. Avoid lumps. Season.

Drain then chuck the spud/cauliflower mix into a buttered gratin dish or something. Wot you make your lasagne in.

Sprinkle in half the grated cheese.

Add pepper. Salt maybe, but not much if at all.

Layer the haddock pieces on top. Carefully pour the cream into the cracks.

Sprinkle paprika on top

Bake at 180 fan for 25 minurtes.

You are alive again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:59 PM

Bugger. When I said sprinkle paprika on top, I should have said to sprinkle the rest of the grated cheese on top first.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:04 PM

No balls eh Shaw.

As for Carroll....whoa, the wind is blowing right through those ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 09:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 08:06 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:32 PM

This sentence - "Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up?" - coming from "chip" munching, cheap wine guzzler Shaw is a bit rich!!

For once Shaw why don't you follow your own advice?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 17 - 11:37 PM

Steve Shaw - 30 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

Being civil and addressing the issues raised

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:35 AM

Raggytash - 30 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM

Try reading what your pal wrote one more time this time paying a bit more attention Raggy.

"The reason that you never saw these common signs was probably because you were too busy looking for Traveller sites to firebomb" - Jim Carroll

The "probably" relates to not seeing signs Raggy, to read it your way the sentence would have read:

"The reason that you never saw these common signs was because you were probably too busy looking for Traveller sites to firebomb."

Some points for clarification Raggy:

1: I have never in my life ever seen any of these signs that your pal Jom says are common throughout mainland UK - Now how is that if they are so common? The example of such a sign that Carroll provides a link to, that Conn Mac Gabhann took such exception to, doesn't state any such thing as "Travellers Not Welcome" as Carroll insists - It doesn't bar or ban "Travellers" at all - which is probably why the CPS took no action in that particular case.

2: I can swear and affirm with total honesty that I have never firebombed, or considered firebombing anything or anybody in my life, and people had best be advised that to state in written form that I have had better have solid proof or face the consequences ( See Smith v Williams 2006)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM

I saw that Mary Berry programme, Steve, as I think I already mentioned. The haddock think looked wonderful. Guess the recipe is online? Must look it up. Mrs loves haddock as well so looks like a winner.

We went a bit left field yesterday with scrambled goose eggs. It was recommended that they are cooked in a bowl over a pan of boiling water so that is what we did. Added some shallots and mushrooms previously sweated in olive oil, some cream and seasoning. Served on plain old white toast. Highly recommended.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM

Dave,
Given the choice between someone does care and someone who wants to restrict freedoms for some and opposes anyone bettering themselves I wonder which sane people would chose?

Who are these people who " wants to restrict freedoms for some and opposes anyone bettering themselves "

Where do they post?
Can you quote any of them saying anything so despicable?

Don't be silly Dave. It just shows how little you have to say that you have to make shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:15 AM

Jim,
Mor racist newspaper hype -

That was The Independent!
Not a racist paper and they do not do hype.
They could sue you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

Just as we try to bring the discussion back to something sensible you go and spoil it Keith. There are plenty of people who would like to restrict freedom and want to keep people 'in their place'. I am sure they post in many places but why should I do your homework for you? Regardeless of any of that the question still stands.

Who would a sane person chose? Someone who cares about other people or someone who wants to oppress them? Nothing silly about asking that and your response is typical twist things to suit your agenda shit. If you want to practice your linguistic nonsense try someone else and stop bothering me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:36 AM

The recipe is online, Dave, but she gives quantities "for six" that wouldn't feed six sparrows (haven't checked whether sparrows eat smoked haddock...), so I've put my amounts in that produced two generous dollops. I get annoyed by recipes that specify a weight of spuds without telling you whether they mean peeled or unpeeled weight. Also, she says to pour the cream into the cornflour and whisk. That was a lump-laden disaster that forced me to get the electric blender out (more bloody washing up), which is why I said to cream the cornflour first with a drop of milk before stirring in the cream. Also, she said "pouring double cream." That means double cream! I prepared it hours in advance, so all I had to do was whack it in the oven. I like recipes like that, especially if I'm feeding the arriving hordes. Gives me more drinking time!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:41 AM

So Dave, you were only speaking hypothetically and did not have any actual person in mind.
What a pointless, silly post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM

"They could sue you."
No they couldn't - as you know yourself from the fact that you haven't faced charges againt the race hatred laws
We say what we wish on line
I did put up the fact that the term ;slave' appeared in inverted commas made it meaningless
You have yet to respond to the type of slavery Britain puts its name to - doubt if you will
I posted to Teribus's crassness earlier but it didn't make it
Will do later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 05:45 AM

Plenty of them around here, Keith!

Can you cook? 🐟🐟🐟🍟🍟🍟🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:01 AM

Independent headline (12hrs)

Third of voters may not vote for Labour because of alleged anti-Semitism, poll suggests
Finding comes as Ken Livingstone faces disciplinary hearing over 'anti-Jewish' comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jewish-news-ken-livingstone-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-a7659186.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:07 AM

"Independent headline"
Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck
Let's see if someone comes up with an actual account of what this 'antisemitism' consists of, shall we - then we might have a real debate instead of the lynch law accusations we have had from you so far
Aave we finished wit the "Traveller slavery" bit Keith
Always happens when your excuses dry up
Jim
Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:28 AM

What a pointless, silly post.

Is it as pointless and silly as post saying how pointless and silly a post is? Especially when, as Steve has already commented, there are plenty of those around here anyway :-)

But, once again, you are entitled to your opinions and, once again, I am entitled to not really give a shit about them. Now, can we get back to the important stuff?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

A lot of very very very pointless and very very very silly posts around here, Dave. Any minute now Keith'll be telling us to stick to the point. Pointless. I might try that scrambled egg recipe of yours but with chuckie-'en eggs, by the way. I never watch Pointless, by the way. I think it's a very very very silly programme.



Wibble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:43 AM

Out of 100 people how many said that this thread was pointless?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:06 AM

Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck

Yep, them Jews can make people make anti-Semitic comments, just how do they do that, such power they have. That would go along with their power to control governments, world finance and the media. You are probably under their mind control too, that would account for your anti-Semitic comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM

Jim,
Aave we finished wit the "Traveller slavery" bit Keith

I have. I just wanted to make the point that it was a genuine issue and not at all racist to refer to it as you suggested.

Your claim that The Independent prints "racist hype" was laughable!

Which proves that some of Israels campaign shit may have stuck

I have no idea what you are getting at, and I am sure I am not alone.
What exactly are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:54 AM

"We say what we wish on line" - Mistaken belief by Jim Carroll

I'd advise you to look up a Crown Court judgement in the Case of Smith v Williams reported in the Guardian in 2006.

We can say what we wish online - Careful

Particularly liked this bit Carroll:

"The judge said Ms Williams must not repeat the defamatory remarks, or in any way suggest Mr Smith is a sexual offender, a sexual deviant, a Nazi or a racist or having any such tendencies."

Now making wild and unsubstantiated allegations and indiscriminately calling people Nazis, fascists and racists on an internet forum. Remind you of anyone in particular who posts on this forum Carroll?

Must check up and see if Ms Williams was indeed made bankrupt or whether she did pay Mr Smith's costs and damages. What was it you accused me of being on that other thread Jim? Oh yes a "Firebomber", a racist and a fascist wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:08 AM

"Any minute now Keith'll be telling us to stick to the point." - Steve Shaw

Ah you mean something like you just recently did on this very thread Shaw:

""Why don't you try to be civil, address the issues raised here without your immature agenda and, well, just grow up?" - Steve Shaw

Tell me is there any particular reason that you wish to demonstrate to everybody who reads the contents of this forum that you are a liar and a hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:10 AM

Is that a pointless Pointless question, Dave? Would it be pointless to try to get Keith to tell boobs to stop being sillily pointless?

Hey, "sillily." Whaddam I like! 😂

Would it be pointless to make a point about the pointlessness or otherwise of pointillism? Try to avoid pointed remarks. I really can't be doing with people acting sillily.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM

"...indiscriminately calling people Nazis, fascists and racists on an internet forum. Remind you of anyone in particular who posts on this forum Carroll?"

Bobad?   Jew-haters? How are you with that, Teribus? OK is it because he's your mate? Or is it pointless to invite more pointless, inane invective from you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:30 AM

Well, up to now Steve I have been told that I am thick, that my shirts could make bell tents and that my morals are shit. None of which are true. How much do you think I would be in for if I sued the defamers? Or is it a pointless exercise?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:33 AM

Teribus:- An interesting case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/4829932.stm
I believe further changes to the law on defamation in the UK occurred in 2014, as summarised below.

https://www.ft.com/content/374299f0-295a-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca

I think in America Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has a similar intent.

I think many post insults with gay abandon below the line on mudcat. Some belong to the give and take of debate/discussion, others are more of a character assassination and deeply resented and hurtful and should not be posted.
   Perhaps everyone should step back a pace and reflect on this, and if required, modify their behaviour. No one wants to stifle free speech, but be careful of those epithets_ they could bite back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:43 AM

Glad you addressed that to Teribus, as he is by far the worst offender on this forum. He can't post to address anything said by me, Jim, Dave or Raggytash without throwing in an insult, misusing our handles or calling us names. And I suppose that telling you to take your own advice would be pointless. And I never wear socks with sandals. Can you cook? Do you like smoked haddock? Are you a piscivore?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:50 AM

I smoked one of them haddocks once. It was, hey, like, wild, man...

Anyone remember the Beverley Hillbillies? One of my lasting memories of it was Jethro dressed as Robin Hood collecting a bunch of hippy followers who sang about smoking crawdads.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:02 AM

I think that Keith, Teribus and Iains have haddock up to here with us, Dave. Especially Teribus. Eel be doing his nut, I reckon. Still, what a boring thread. So much nicer to fillet with recipes. Think I'll go out and get soused tonight....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:05 AM

Well I suppose I'm in the clear, as I've been reported to the police several times for daring to point out the recorded negative aspects of male homosexuality ......so far I have had no communication from the police.....other than the "thought police". :0)

Dave and Steve are just stupid spoiled children, Jim has lost the plot a long time ago and no longer allows anything to register which contravenes his view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

"I have. I just wanted to make the point that it was a genuine issue and not at all racist to refer to it as you suggested."
The way it was handled by the press in making it a traveller issue rather than a criminal one was racist
It was a crime committed by criminals who happened to be Travellers, nothing more than that
You have been given examples in which similar types of activity are ignored by by Britain and not made "British" crimes, yet you and your ilk have raised them as examples of Traveller behaviour, and expanded on it - that is what makes it racist.
"Your claim that The Independent prints "racist hype" was laughable!"
The press in general goes in for such hype, the Independent being one of the better ones who, on this occasion, put the term 'slavery' in inverted commas, to their credit - most of the rest of the press didn't bother.
It has no place in an argument about prejudice against Travellers and it was racist for Teribus to have raised it here.
The description "slave" was a misnoma anyway, unless you include Dell Computers under the same heading
Still no comment on the far worse conditions we British benefit from - I don'rt wonder why, strangely enough!!
"I have never in my life ever seen any of these signs that your pal Jom "
Still the insecure "Jom" - always a sign that you are floundering and blustering.
The fact that you have not seen the signs in immaterial to this argument - neither had we until we started to be involved with Travellers.
Tou have been given masses of information on their existence, including references to how common they were - you choose to nit-pick about one case
"It doesn't bar or ban "Travellers" at all - which is probably why the CPS took no action in that particular case."
It does just that - if you had read what has been put up, signs worded like this wrere put up and had the same effect of barring Travellers. and, we have been told by Travellers, still do.
I very much doubt if the incidents got as far as the CPS - the police are noted for not bothering with such incidents.
In the mid eighties the Travellers mounted a campaign to get more sites and the vast majority were forced to camp illegally.
A small number of them moved onto prominent public land, contacted the local press and waited for something to happen - one of those demonstrations took place on Streatham Commom
A workmate who knew of my interest, told me (somewhat gleefully) that his brother-in-law and some of his friends from Streatham were intending to attack and burn one of the caravans to scare the Travellers off.
I thought about going to the police, but having had a number of experiences with them, instead I contacted Traveller activist, Roy Wells, who was camped a mile away from our home.
Roy contacted the police, but as an extra precaution, he went to the camp and put them on alert
As a further precaution, I told my workmate I had passed on the information.
The police did nothing - they never followed the report up, they never contacted Wells, they never contacted the Travellers on the site - nothing - no, not entirely true.
About a month later we got a visit from two boys in blue who asked us what contact we had with Travellers and would we report any criminal activity we came across ---- end of story.
I could spend days relating such stories, but I'm pretty sure you would pass it off as Carroll lies and bullshit.
THe police's attitude to Travellers was very much part of the "institutional racism" they found themselves guilty of after the Stephen Lawrence fiasco.
I have no doubt whatever that you have never been involved in a firebombing - your type never have the balls to get your hands dirty in following up your prejudices.
You racist stereotyping adds fuel to the hatred that already exists towards Travellers and, as far as I am concernd, you are as resonsible as the one who throws the firebomb and pours the petrol - "they also serve who only stand and wait", as the saying goes.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:14 AM

Perhaps another thread ir required and then we can have a poll of who is regarded as the worst offender. I suspect it would be shaw and carroll, purely on the volume of burblings. Shaw 15000 since around 2006.
Jim 18000 since 2007. Me just over 400 since 1999. When it comes to insults I am definitely amateur status compared to you Shaw and yes I can cook and would not be seen dead in sandals. And I can eat most things but palm tree grubs in Nigeria is a bit too bush tucker for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:18 AM

Dave and Steve are just stupid spoiled children

Ooooh, there is another couple of grand :-)

Steve - On yer motor pike and side carp or I'll sing you that Welsh classic 'Whale kipper whelk-on in the hillsides'. And I'm not codding.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:35 AM

What I suggest you do, Iains, is review all of Steve and Jims posts to get the percentage of them that are insulting, patronising or defamatory. Then do the same with those from Teribus, bobad and ake. What you should end up with is facts rather than suspicions and at least it will keep you too busy to pester anyone on here for a month or two.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:47 AM

I meant to add to the above posting - try putting a notice up saying "blacks by appointment only"
"I suspect it would be shaw and carroll, purely on the volume of burblings.
Another visit from another troll with nothing to say
I suggest yougo count the number of postings you have made that don't contain insults and compare them with the ones that do - but to so before the betting shop closes - I'd like to but a bet on thet one!!
Grow up for fucks sake - if you have nothing to say, say nothing like all children should
Whats is the matter with you morons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 10:57 AM

We had a Scotsman flying past our village earlier today. Hope it is a better behaved one than the one on here. I'm going to try and catch him on the return journey as I missed the Tornado.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:20 AM

Bobad?   Jew-haters? How are you with that, Teribus?

Very easy to verify according to the definition adopted by the majority of civilized countries, the UK police force and the Labour party of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM

Yet another glorious day out here on the Connemara, very warm and a gentle breeze, good music in the bar tonight with a great guitarist and singer with button accordion accompaniment ......... plus me and my good lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:32 AM

"Very easy to verify according to the definition adopted by the majority of civilized countries,"
Show us one definition that includes criticism of Israel and does not include associating the Jewish people with the actions of Israel
Won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:47 AM

Legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions is anti-Semitic.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor is anti-Semitic.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is anti-Semitic.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 11:53 AM

They're just a bunch of ignorant pollacks, Dave. Their posts are largely full of hake-mail. They make me pull faces at times - gurn 'ard, even. Good suggestion to Iains that he should mullet over, though. He simply doesn't know his plaice. Somebody needs to knock him off his perch. Just started raining here, by the way - must put on my mackerel get wet through...


What kind of music tonight, Raggytash? Sole? Enjoy. Don't forget your tuna. Hope you get home happy and breaming all over your face!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

A great mixture tonight, trad tunes with some americana and some Irish songs old and new. The two guys playing are old friends of mine so I get a "guest" spot during the night which will "earn" me a pint or three.

Unlike many pubs in the UK, musicians and singers are almost revered here and the drink flows freely for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is anti-Semitic."

If we give Israel massive economic and military aid and give it favourable trade deals, we expect Israel to use that aid to advance itself appropriately as a democracy. We can't have the same expectation of a country we don't help. We can have hope, that's all. No double standard. I give my child pocket money but not my neigbour's child. I don't expect my child to use it to buy peashooters and catapults for harassing the other kids. I hope my neighbour's child will also refrain from misusing HIS pocket money that way, but, as it wasn't me who gave it to him, I can't have the same expectation. No double standard. The EU consists of 28 countries all of which are signed up to democracy and human rights, among other things. We expect every country in the EU to fully live up to that, in return for favourable trade deals, better security and the free movement of citizens. It would be very nice if, for example, Turkey lived up to the same ideals, but it doesn't. We can hope for that but we can't have the same expectations as we have for EU countries. No double standard. I'm afraid that your definition is designed to obstruct criticism of Israel. Not Jews, by the way, Israel. More specifically, the Israeli regime.

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic."

Not if the comparisons are valid. My view is that it is not constructive to do so under any circumstances because there can't be a good outcome for criticism levelled in that way, no matter how well-justified. But any country has the potential to act in ways we observed during the Nazi regime. If they do, we have to be free to express our criticisms in the most full-blooded way. Otherwise, again, your definition is intended to protect Israel from criticism, no matter how outrageous the behaviour. When the Taliban or the Burmese generals or Mugabe act like Nazis, we say so, though we always have to justify the comparison by saying what actions they carry out thatbare the same as Nazi actions. Myself, I think it's always best just to describe the actions as plainly as possible. That usually ups the ante quite enough as it is with Israeli regime apologists without rattling on about Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

that are the same

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

"Legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic."
Cite anything anybody has made that isn't legitimate and I'' cite you all the times you have shrieked Jew-hater all the times somebody has made any criticism of Israel
My offer of a generous donation to any named charity or anything I have said that in any wayy critcises the Jewish peoplke - that fact that you have never taken that offer up proves that you have never been able to come up with anything which acctually confirms it is you, not anybody else who is antisemitic.
Implicating the Jewish People in the crimes of Israel is not only antisemitic, but it is almost the direct cause of antisemitism in the world today - it paints targets on every Jew on the planet.
You have no interest in the Jewish people - if you had you would have condemned your friend Keith when he claimed that the Jewish members in Parliament refused to specify the crimes Labour was accused of because they put the interests of the Party before those of the Jewish People, making you not only an appeaser of antisemitism, but a hypocrite in pretending to have the interests of the Jewish People at heart
You are welcome to rectify that now - but you won't
Now - you given your list, point me to where I have ever made such statements
Again - I won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:46 PM

Lol, the first hit I got from search:

User Name         Thread Name         Subject         Posted
[PM] Jim Carroll         BS: Palestine (657* d)         RE: BS: Palestine         23 Oct 11

I have claimed that there are comparisons ("echoes" is the word I used) to be drawn between the behaviour of the Nazis towards the Jews, and that of the Israelis towards the Palestinians

There are probably hundreds more to be had if someone has the stomach for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:51 PM

Yes but you're not listening, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 12:56 PM

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:00 PM

Jim,
Keith when he claimed that the Jewish members in Parliament refused to specify the crimes Labour was accused of because they put the interests of the Party before those of the Jewish People,

If that is not a lie, quote me saying it.
I did claim that they reported it to Labour leadership to deal with, as did those complaining of misogyny and homophobia.

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

Steve,
Not if the comparisons(of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis) are valid.

The definition does not have that qualification because such a claim could never be valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:08 PM

Not if the comparisons(of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis) are valid.

Did he actually write that?      Unfu**kingbelievable!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:14 PM

That is a criticism of Israel - not the Jewish people
JEWS THOUGHOUT THE WORLD now make the same comparison, including leading members of the Israeli establishment
AS Israel is the leadind State to implicate Jewish people in their crimes, that definition is no longer valid
My statement was "anything I have said that in any way critcises the Jewish people" - not the Israeli regime.
If there are "hundreds more", go and find one where I criticise the Jewish People.
You are a liar b=Bobad, and you know you are.
One of the points in your posting -
"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is anti-Semitic."
I have consistently condemned Britain's selling of arms to repressive Muslim states like Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia - each time I have done so, you have stayed silent - once again, you are a hypocrite in putting the interests of your government above those of the people who are fighting these despots.
, AND STILL YOU REFUSE TO COMMENT ON KEITH'S 'JEWISH PLOT' THEORY - ARE YOU TWO SLEEPING WITH EACH OTHER?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:21 PM

That is a criticism of Israel - not the Jewish people

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:39 PM

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic."
No it isn't - no criticism of a repressive regime is antisemitic if it is true
That would make millions of Jews antisemitic - a contradiction in terms
THE GATEKEEPERS
If that definition is valid, then you and Israel alike are antisemites by claiming all criticism is Antisemitic - Israel has done it , you do it all the time.
Let's cut to the chase and see where your loyalties lie.
I roundly condemn Britain for selling arms to repressive states like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria (not forgetting that the latter includes material used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
Do you join me in that criticiam or are your loyalties in this with the government?
Simple yes or no will do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 01:53 PM

Just wanted to get post 1918 to see if we could move on to the first world war as well. May as well go for the full set...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 02:33 PM

Well let's see. Plenty of horrible people in recent history have not been Nazis but have acted like Nazis. Idi Amin's regime acted like Nazis and Papa Doc's regime acted like Nazis. In saying that, I am not saying the the Ugandans acted like Nazis or that the Haitians acted like Nazis. I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things. They would not be my words. There has never been an Amin or a Pol Pot in charge in Israel, let alone a Hitler. The Jewish people suffered terribly at the hands of the real Nazis and it serves no purpose to make the comparison in that manner. If we are to learn anything from history, we must be able to identify and condemn terrible war crimes against civilians. To me, along with those massacres and the bombing of Lebanon, the bombing of Dresden is in that category, and, worst of all, so are the nuclear attacks in Japan. You are not immune from this sort of criticism just because you are an Israeli leader. The argument may well be whether you think that the examples I've given are war crimes at all. You can argue that very clearly without bringing the ethnicity of the perpetrators into it. Churchill was a white Christian when he ordered the bombing of Dresden. If I were sitting here now arguing with you whether that was a war crime, neither of us would bring that up. Yet if I condemn the cluster bombs it's a case of "Ahah, you're only saying that because it was Israel, so you may be an antisemite!" Now that's what I call a double standard. And don't tell me that you won't say it. We routinely can't criticise those actions on this forum without being called antisemitic.

"The definition does not have that qualification because such a claim could never be valid."

Why not? Are you saying that Israeli leaders are imbued with some kind of special saintliness that prevents them from ever turning into an Amin or a Pol Pot?

But Nazis? Wrong word. Say plainly what you think the Israeli regime does wrong, the same way as you criticise the wrongdoings of everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:33 PM

Jim,
KEITH'S 'JEWISH PLOT' THEORY -

Liar. If you are not lying quote me, liar.

Jim and Steve,
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is anti-Semitic."
No it isn't - no criticism of a repressive regime is antisemitic if it is true

According to the definition used by democratic countries including this one, it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:46 PM

Well, Keith, why don't we use our brains instead of relying on the lower authority of a definition drawn up by people pressed by lobbyists?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:55 PM

pressed by lobbyists

That plotting, all powerful Jewish lobby again.

the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 03:55 PM

"good music in the bar tonight with a great guitarist and singer with button accordion accompaniment ......... plus me and my good lady."

Well I suppose that that proves the old saying - Every silver lining has a cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 04:18 PM

" I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things. They would not be my words." - Pollack Shaw

1: When did the Israeli Regime massacre hundreds of civilians in refugee camps Shaw?

2: Did the use of cluster bombs have anything whatsoever to do with a legitimate and proportionate response to an attack on the sovereign state of Israel by a terrorist organisation based in a neighbouring country? Can't imagine why on earth the great Pollack would omit such a detail.

3: When Israel is attacked, which it has been constantly, since its inception in 1948, it is not the Israeli Regime that responds it is the people of Israel.

4: Now Shaw as - "They would not be my words" - What would your words be you complete and utter SPRAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 06:37 PM

Round and round and round we go, Teribus. Why would we expect to believe a word of what you say about Ireland or WWI when you indulge in such blatant revisionism apropos of those two massacres? And I'm really not going into that with you all over again.

Amazingly simple comfort food recipe tonight, thanks to Nigella (Christ, I LOVE that woman!). I've put my own twist on it. You need a bag of orzo pasta for this. It looks like rice but it's pasta. Even Morrisons sell it (sorry, Dave!)

This will do for two people.

Get a heavy-based pan and put a tablespoon of EV olive oil in it. Slice two garlic cloves into it. Cut up 150g sliced pancetta (or pancetta cubes) and throw it in. Sauté gently until the bacon goes a bit crispy. Don't burn the garlic. I will not consume brown garlic.

Throw 200g frozen BirdsEye peas into the pan. Turn up the heat a bit and stir for two minutes, add salt (easy, tiger) and pepper. Throw in 250g of orzo and stir like mad for a minute.

Add 625 ml boiling water. Keep the kettle hot as you may need a drop more later if the mix gets too thick. Stir like mad then simmer gently for ten minutes. You have to stir it a couple more times to stop the pasta from sticking.

When the orzo is al dente, stir in a big knob of butter (preferably unsalted) and a big handful of freshly-grated parmesan. Check the seasoning and add a bit more boiling water if it's too thick.

This is so easy and it's just brilliant. It's like a risotto, but it's quite different in character and it's a damn sight easier (though I do have a cheat's risotto recipe that cuts out all that ladling and stirring). A brilliant Friday night job when you can't be arsed to get complicated. You see, the difference between Teribus and me is that I adore good food and love to keep it simple. I'm a joyous and light-hearted sort of chap, as you all can see, while he's humourless and bitter. Though I love the fact that he refers to me as "pollack." I am guessing that he's an inveterate pie man who cares not a jot about what pastry is used. No wonder he's miserable.

Mind you, what's so wrong with pies....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 08:02 PM

The Iaraelis facilitated the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed civilians at the refugees in Sabra Shatila in September, 1982
Without their collusion, the killings could not have happened
They collected the killers from the airpor, armed them, tranported them to the camp, allowed access onto the site, provided illumination so the killing could go on uninterrupted, turned back the refugees attempting to escape, provided equipment to bury the bodies, prvided the killers with a meas of escape and eventually built a stadium over the site where most of the bodies were buried so the actual numbers would never be known
THese are verified facts
Next
"Did the use of cluster bombs have anything whatsoever to do with a legitimate and proportionate response to an attack on the sovereign state of Israel by a terrorist organisation based in a neighboring country?"
Did the attacks by a poorly armed ill trained third world force have anything to do with the attempts of the Isrieli regime have anything to do with attempts of a country with a well trained well armed nuclear facilitated army to drive a people who had occupied their land for many centuries out of their rightful homeland
Were the responses proportionate - go count the dead, go work out how many of those dead were non-combatants - including women and children
"When Israel is attacked, which it has been constantly, since its inception in 1948"
The State of Israel was born to the sound of Israeli grenades being tossed into occupied houses to make room for the new settlers
Is your response a defence of mass murder and war crimes
Yes it most certainly is.
And the music goes round and round......
"What would your words be you complete and utter SPRAT."
As does your infantile behaviour towards those whi=o disagree with you
Do you really have such little confidence in your case that you feel you have to bully and bluster and bully it through?
Rhetoriacal question - that's what schoolyard bullies do.
"Liar. If you are not lying quote me, liar."
I have done Keith, twice, and you repeated the accusation
I can't be arsed repeating something everybody knows to be true.
"According to the definition used by democratic countries including this one, it is."
Accordint the that definition, it is antisemitic to implicate the Jewish people in the actions of teh State of Israel
By calling those whho criticise Israel antisemitic, that;'s what you do, that's what Bobad does and that's what the Israeli regime does
The Israeli justice minister has even said punlicly that it it antsemitic to criticise Israeli policy
By doing so she made the definition null and cvoid.
The only workable definition of antisemitism is denigration of the Jewish people - nobody on this forum has ever done that other than you Keith by claiming that Jewish Parliamentarians have put the interest of their party above that of the Jewish People.
Bobad remains an appeaser as he refuses to condemn your antisemitism and he is shows where his loyalties really lie as he refuses to condemn the British government for selling arms to despotic states - including Muslim ones.
Checkmate, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:06 PM

Give me the name of one single Israeli soldier who entered the camp let alone massacred anyone in the incidents you are referring to.

You will be unable to do that Shaw because none did. On the subject of refugee camp massacres do you believe the "Palestinian" stories about Jenin?

You did after all say that the Israelis were guilty of war crimes because THEY massacred people in refugee camps didn't you pollack.

But to answer your question - "Why would we expect to believe a word of what you say about Ireland or WWI when you indulge in such blatant revisionism apropos of those two massacres? - Possibly because those two massacres (That were not carried out by Israelis) have got S.F.A. to do with either Ireland or the First World War. You indulge in lies, half-truths, myths and misrepresentations - I don't.

The Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium, Beirut - destroyed in 1982, rebuilt completely in 1997 and then redeveloped and rebuilt once more in 2015 - Guess what? Not one single body found anywhere. Got any reasonably logical explanation for that Carroll, considering that you believe thousands were buried under it?

Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium, Beirut

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 17 - 09:17 PM

"he refers to me as "pollack." - well yes Shaw As fish seems to be your thing at the moment judging by all the attempts at piscatorial humour in your posts. Ever been to Glasgow Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 02:55 AM

"Give me the name of one single Israeli soldier who entered the camp let alone massacred anyone in the incidents you are referring to."
If I did, would you be able to identify him?
Rather like saying "give me the name of the individual who commissioned the hit-man who was seen at the scene of the hit"
Meaningless evasive bullshit Teribus - the massacre was facilitated by Israel - it would not have been able to take place had they not done so.
Even if Israeli soldiers had not been present at the slaughter, they were guilty before and after the fact.
Israeli soldiers were reported on the site by eyewitness survivors and there is no question they manned the gates and turned fleeing refugees back into the hands of their killers and rapists.
"On the subject of refugee camp massacres do you believe the "Palestinian" stories about Jenin?"
More meaningless evasive bullshit - Sabra Shatila was fully verified and reported on by independent witnesses, tried by an independent commission and by the accused - the Independent one found Israel guilty, Israel found herself partially guilty
Israel took her guilt so seriously that they elected the man they to be responsible Prime Minister - that's how seriously!!
Imagine a Prime Minister of Britain who was known to have been responsible for the massacre of thousands of unarmed refugees (Thatcher came the nearest with her open support for Augusto Pinochet)
The only reason Israel was never tried for this and other war crimes (not really a war crime when non-combatants are the sole target) and human rights
Why should we believe a racist who denigrates entire ethnic minorities and entire national groups? (another one will be along in a minute)
You don't have to "believe" anybody - this is documented history of which you have been given so much evidence that you have complained of the amount.
Sabra Shatila is documented history - You have produced nothing other than denials and the type of bullshit you are producing here
Done and dusted - "and there's an end t'it" as the Bard once remarked.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 03:24 AM

Steve,
Well, Keith, why don't we use our brains instead of relying on the lower authority of a definition drawn up by people pressed by lobbyists?

It has the force of law. It defines a hate crime.

Jim,
"Liar. If you are not lying quote me, liar."
I have done Keith, twice, and you repeated the accusation

Another lie to compound the first Jim.
Do not accuse me of saying shit WITHOUT QUOTING IT!.
You can't because it is just the rantings of a liar with nothing real to say.

There were a few massacres in those camps, all committed by Arabs including the one you refer to which the IDF stopped.
No collusion.
No decent democratic country holds Israel responsible. Only nasty regimes with real blood on their own hands, and people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 03:50 AM

Can we just establish what this thread now is
It is an attempt by two extremists who have humiliated themselves over and over again over subjects they appear to know little about but have felt it necessary to defend the honour of Imperial Britain, The ethnic cleansing Israeli regime and their own racist bigotry bigotry
W.W.1. - Ireland - Sabra Shatila - Travellers..... all done and dusted, all settled, and all fully exposed as atrocity denying, Imperial brutality and the persecution of ethnic minorities
This has become an excercise in face saving by a couple of very, very sore losers (to use their own phrase)
They got their Imperial arses kicked then and they have only succeeded in humiliating themselves further by expanding their stupidity, ignorance and blind bigotry in more detail
Who'd have ever thought that denial of a common ant-Traveller sign could turn into a "Slave owning, Human Trafficking ethnic minority" - you couldn't have asked for a more perfect conclusion to a long, distasteful saga of extremist strutting!
"You can't because it is just the rantings of a liar with nothing real to say."
This from someone who surrounded himself with an army of phantom witnesses and has consistently refused to quote their evidence
And I'm the one off my meds !!!
Have a nice day Keith - d'y'all hear now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 03:53 AM

Yes Jim we have been over this numerous times before. Each time your "eye-witnesses" have been proven to have been anything but.
"Guilty before and after the fact" you say. "They must have known" is your reasoning - then apply that same reasoning to the Connors family neighbours at those Traveller sites where the Conners were keeping their 22 slaves. What passes for reason in your mind flutters like a rag in the breeze picking up whatever wind suits best.

Now answer the question I asked. You clearly stated that the Israelis buried the bodies of those slain under the Camille Chamoun Stadium in Beirut. You obviously believe this to be the case. You have all the information regarding the Stadium, its history and details of its reconstruction and further modernisation (None of which was done by Israelis by the way) - Why have there been no bodies found?

For the benefit of anyone else reading this as Jim will simply ignore the inconvenient facts and questions I will tell you why there were no bodies found - there were no bodies buried there in the first place. Perhaps Jim can drum up a few "eye-witnesses" to say that there were, the FACT that in extensive rebuilding operations not a single body or evidence of human remains was unearthed will completely demolish any credibility in Jim's "eye-witness" testimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:06 AM

We are off to Morrisons later. Believe it or not we don't often go to the store as we do online more and more nowadays. I may well buy some orzo and try that recipe - Thanks Steve. Would it go with your favourite Morrisons wine of the moment do you reckon or would it be better with a white?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:08 AM

"We say what we wish on line" - Mistaken belief by Jim Carroll

Here's another one for you Jim:

Careful with false and unsubstantiated accusations

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM

Nothing fresh, just allusions to things thaat might have been if things had turned out patter for you
You answer nothing that has been put up other than with unsubstantiated deials and you offer nothing of your own and you want to rehash the fact that the bodies were buried in numeous sites and a sports stadium was built over some of them
Are you really that desperate to divert attention from the fact that Israel facilitated the massacre of up to three and a half thousand refugees
For the benefit of you Teribus - for you, this particular war os over.
You have not offered a single documented fact to counter the masses of evidence you have been presented with - not one.
That's what you do - pour out the bullshit and expect it to be taken on trust and doesn't your small-minder blustering name-calling "Jom" show clearly that you know that fact and think you can bluster it though by unimaginative, infantile name-calling
You couldn't slide a credit- card between which of you pair is the most pathetic.
You're not really threatening me with legal action, are you
bring it on bro
Pa-the-tic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 04:51 AM

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.

Likewise racist bigotry bigotry
Made up shit shit.

denial of a common ant-Traveller sign could turn into a "Slave owning, Human Trafficking ethnic minority"

We were right to deny that the signs were common. None of us who liver here have ever seen one. And it is true that Travellers are massively over-represented in convictions for slavery, as the Independent article made clear.

"You can't(produce quotes) because it is just the rantings of a liar with nothing real to say."

If that is not true and a fair description of you Jim, where are the quotes?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 05:12 AM

Not much of an answer, was it, Keith? We used to have a law that said you could cut someone's guts out in public as they were hanged. Instead of appealing to authority, why don't you use your brain? The wider version of "antisemitism" was drawn up by a body that was advised mostly by pro-Israel lobby groups and its aim was to protect the Israeli regime from criticism. That loss of focus is very injurious to Jewish people as it departs from the only workable definition, that antisemitism is attacking Jews because they are Jews. Nothing to do with countries or regimes. Easy to interpret, no need for angst over marginal is-it-isn't-it squabbles as we've seen with regard to the Labour Party. Two things are now going to happen. You are going to tell me how many countries have adopted it and you are going to keep rattling on and on. But I'm not discussing it with you any more because you are not going to use your brain. What fish do you like? Got any recipes?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 05:31 AM

"And it is true that Travellers are massively over-represented in convictions for slavery, as the Independent article made clear."

Give me the statistics. I want to know the total number of CONVICTIONS (the word you used), the period of time they apply to, the nature of the offences, the number of convictions that apply to travellers and the criteria used by the authorities to define the convicts as travellers. Demonstrate this "massive over-representation" with numbers, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 05:41 AM

"If that is not true and a fair description of you Jim, where are the quotes?"
You've had them Keith and you've repeated the claim
Where are your "implant" quotes?
Iv'e shown you mine, now you show me yours.
Isn't it amazing how Bobad disappears when you need him
"And it is true that Travellers are massively over-represented in convictions for slavery"
What??????????????????????????????????
Racist garbage
Four criminals were convicted for illegal detention -
You are a racist madman with your fucking cultural implants and your reqwiting facts
Whiho are you working for Keith The BNP, Uip?
You have now really flipped on this one.
"Made up shit shit."
No you are becoming hysterical
Pa - the- tic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 06:02 AM

What passes for reason in your mind flutters like a rag in the breeze picking up whatever wind suits best.

Great line Teribus, poetic and spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 06:03 AM

THe pair of you have now double-somersaulted out of your racist closets like a synchronized swimming team
I would say that's about as much evidence as anybody needs to let you wallow in your own racist vomit - don't you?
Thank you for making yet another day for me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:20 AM

"the fact that the bodies were buried in numeous sites and a sports stadium was built over some of them." - Jim Carroll

But Jim, that is the point. There is only one stadium in the area, the Camille Chamoun Stadium:

Destroyed in 1982
Rebuilt by British and Lebanese Construction Engineers in 1997 long, long after the IDF had left Beirut.
Modernised and extensively updated in 2015.

And Guess what Jim? Not a single body found, or any trace of human remains - funny that if there are supposed to be 3,500 bodies buried there isn't it.

Tell us about all those nurses and doctors the IDF were supposed to have taken away and executed according to "your" eye-witnesses Jim? You know the ones, the ones that all turned up safe and well and all accounted for.

As previously stated all your eye-witnesses turn out, on examination, to be anything but.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:54 AM

"But Jom, that is the point. There is only one stadium in the area, the Camille Chamoun Stadium:But Jom, that is the point. There is only one stadium in the area, the Camille Chamoun Stadium"
For Christ's sake Teribus, we've been here ad nauseum - you got nowhere then and you'll get nowhere now.
The Stadium was one detail out of a massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed civilians
Try addressing the main picture instead of hiding behind incidentals - come out from behind your smoke-and mirrors act - you've used it to cover the facts far too often and you;'ve never been good at it.
Jom again - more confirmation of your evasive bullshitting - you don't really have to display your insecure lack of imagination; we are all too well aware of it without the bluster-barrier.
Try seeing yourself as others see you, as Rabbie once remarked
Feckin' eejit!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:48 AM

Sorry Jim, old son, it is you who have got nowhere. You stated that the Israelis buried the bodies of those they were supposed to have massacred under a sports stadium, only thing is no bodies have been found there even although extensive ground works have been performed there since 1982.

Yes the stadium is one detail that would appear to be central to this myth about a mass grave. A detail that can be proved to be false.

Your version of the "main picture" is so full of holes that it is no wonder that it does not even hold together even under cursory examination. Your facts are nothing of the sort, a story spun by the same dissemblers and liars that brought the world the "horror" story of the Massacre at Jenin - a story that proved to be a complete lie a complete crock of shit.

Now if we want to pursue this we could reopen the original thread where this was discussed? Or would that just expose all your so-called evidence for the tripe it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 08:56 AM

I am very pleased by your verbal attack Terikins, typical of you by the way, you have never heard me play, you have never heard either myself or my good lady singer, yet you feel obliged to offer criticism of the same.

It just goes to show what an empty, mean minded little person you are, so no surprise there really !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 10:05 AM

"Sorry Jim, old son, it is you who have got nowhere."
Ho hum - here we go round the mulberry bush
I don't have anything that "doesn't hold upo"
I've presented fcts - You have presented nothing but your own bigoted opinion with nothing to back it up and now you

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

Whoops
I don't have anything that "doesn't hold upo"
I've presented fcts - You have presented nothing but your own bigoted and now you are trying to avoid the question of who facilitated the killing and produced so many corpses in need of burying
The disposal of the bodies is long settled and you have produces nothing to show otherwise.
You stay in your little evasinve corner - this is where I am
Catch up if you will, or don't - your choice

The Iaraelis facilitated the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed civilians at the refugees in Sabra Shatila in September, 1982
Without their collusion, the killings could not have happened
They collected the killers from the airpor, armed them, tranported them to the camp, allowed access onto the site, provided illumination so the killing could go on uninterrupted, turned back the refugees attempting to escape, provided equipment to bury the bodies, provided the killers with a meas of escape and eventually built a stadium over the site where most of the bodies were buried so the actual numbers would never be known
These are verified facts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 10:24 AM

Now IIRC the IDF were under orders to withdraw from Beirut.
The Lebanese Militias and Lebanese Army was going to take over responsibility for "security" in Beirut.

Tell me Jim why would those militiamen and Lebanese troops need transporting from the airport? Where had they flown in from, their holidays?

3,500? That number has never been substantiated or verified - your best bet was that the IDF under the gaze of the UN and world's press somehow buried them "in secret" under a sports stadium that at the times was in ruins, but no bodies or the slightest trace of human remains found at this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 10:31 AM

By the way
"Or would that just expose all your so-called evidence for the tripe it is."
I suggest you reopn the old threads on this and look at how hard you tried to disprove the facts of Sabra Shatila and came up with zilch, nothing, nowt, s.f.a........
Keith's contribution came the nearest to providing an argument when he said 'the Israelis said they didn't do it so it can't be true'
Now he stonewalls with 'the Israelis have never done anything wrong because the politicians have never condemned them (not supported them, just stayed silent)
You really are a pair of morons - you really need to toss yup in the morning to decide whose turn it is to use the brain
Jeeze!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 10:54 AM

Never come across anybody who denies all the accepted facts and offers nothing of his own
Must be a new high in megalomania
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 11:30 AM

One thing is certain Jim counter to what Pollack said no members or units of the IDF massacred anyone in any refugee camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 11:53 AM

Got all the fixings for that orzo dish, Steve. I am going to have a go at it soon but at the moment unwinding with a glass of the Nero D'Alola and it is indeed everything you say. Also bought a Fiano, made in Sicily as well, as I like match mt reds and whites by country (I know, blame my Catholic upbringing...) If the red don't go with the food, I'll move over. So, this thread is good for something at least:-)

Been out all afternoon, first in Haworth assisting with the daughters plumbing and then to Skipton for a lovely afternoons browsing. Bought a pair of shorts in the sale in Mountain Warehouse, then saw another pair very similar for a 1/4 of the price in a charity shop. So I bought them too. I guess I have not turned completely Yorkshire yet! Noticed when I got back that the snake's head fritillaries were out. Funny thing is, no one remembers planting them but this is definitely the second or third year we have had them. Beautiful but sadly short lived. Unlike this thread.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 12:09 PM

"One thing is certain Jom counter to what Pollack said no members or units of the IDF massacred anyone in any refugee camp."
"Pollack " - a new bit of imbecility
More nitpicking - they facilitated the massacre, it wouldn't have taken place had they not provided weapons, transport illumination and opportunity
Was the getaway driver a part of the bank robbery - of course he was
Your wriggling self inflicted ignorance is an indication that you have not read a single thin put up about this massacre.
"Where had they flown in from, their holidays?"
That's where they were based - even the Kahan report doesn't deny those facts
"Draper reportedly continued that his "own officers (not further identified) had seen about two hundred Phalange soldiers and ten trucks at Beirut airport. Draper then is said to have remarked to Kashdan that "using Phalangists in West Beirut could have horrible results."
You are an arrogant moron who appears to get it off by making yourself look stupid in public
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 12:31 PM

Steve,
The slavery laws are new.
The first ever convictions were four Travellers in July 2012.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/11/four-face-jail-slavery-law-convictions

Five Travellers were convicted in December 2012 for keeping a small private workforce and paying them as little as £5 a day for their work.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-rescue-three-male-slaves-from-traveller-sites-8991784.html
The same link refers to two Travellers arrested in December 2013 on slavery charges.

In 2016 a Traveller family was jailed for total of 27 years after a court heard two men were used like 'slaves'
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/travellers-descend-cardiff-crown-court-11405928

I may have missed some. The only non Traveller conviction I can remember is some Maoist cult leader. How many can you think of Steve?

Unless you can come up with some others there is clearly a massive over-representation of Travellers convicted of slavery, as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 12:36 PM

Steve,
Instead of appealing to authority, why don't you use your brain?

This is about the accepted definition of anti-Semitism.
I have used my brain and I agree with it.
You refuse to even though it has gained acceptance.
That is why you are incapable of recognising anti-Semitism even when it is admitted by the person responsible and the Labour Party leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 12:48 PM

"If that is not true and a fair description of you Jim, where are the quotes?"
You've had them Keith and you've repeated the claim

I have not. You are just blustering and lying trying to cover your previous lies.

I've presented fcts (Sabra/Shatila)

You have not.
The Iaraelis facilitated the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed civilians at the refugees in Sabra Shatila in September, 1982
Without their collusion, the killings could not have happened
They collected the killers from the airpor, armed them, tranported them to the camp, allowed access onto the site, provided illumination so the killing could go on uninterrupted, turned back the refugees attempting to escape, provided equipment to bury the bodies, provided the killers with a meas of escape and eventually built a stadium over the site where most of the bodies were buried so the actual numbers would never be known
These are verified facts

They are not.
Israelis did not "facilitate" any massacre.
There was no proven collusion.
You do not need illumination for an armed militia to massacre civilians in a refugee camp.
No bodies were buried in the camp using Israeli equipment.
No bodies went under the stadium.
Not one single verifiable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 01:27 PM

That dish was indeed wonderful. Of course what Steve didn't tell us is that once you try it you are forever in thrall to Nigella. I can think of worse fates. Such as having to suffer Keith for ever but, luckily, we can avoid that by discussing more important things.

I would recommend the pudding I had as well. A piece of the Co-ops cranberry and pumpkin seed bread spread thickly with soft Yorkshire blue cheese. Washed down with another glass of Nero D'Avola.

Perhaps it is things like this that are missing from some peoples lives that makes them so grumpy?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM

"They are not.
Israelis did not "facilitate" any massacre.
There was no proven collusion.
You do not need illumination for an armed militia to massacre civilians in a refugee camp.
No bodies were buried in the camp using Israeli equipment.
No bodies went under the stadium.
Not one single verifiable fact."
Every single one verified and you know it Keith
You give us your version
You lie about everything now Keith - you really are a lost soul on this forum
Your continued self contradictory Racism is typical of your lying
First you claim I had over=reacted to an ironical comment by Teribus
""Jim, you are over-reacting to an ironic reference to Travellers being over-represented in recent slavery cases.""
Then, with one mighty leap, you have even trumped his comments by going viral and claiming four criminals are an over-representation of "Slavery"
What is your evidence for this ludicrous charge - four more press reports
For crying out loud - even you must see how stupidly contradicory this is
You claimed not to be a racist - you said you were only claiming that the signs were not common - now you are in the story-bood world of "slavery"
Go wife the froth off your mouth Keith
You are approaching your "implant" level
Both of you are raving racists -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 03:51 PM

Off to a little village this evening for some more music. The village has about 30 houses, a school, a riding school, a shop and 4 bars,one of which does superb seafood..... your mussels will be 20 mintes, that the boat bringing them in ............ oh and a little harbour. The music will go on until the early hours, I've seldom left before 3 in the morning.

At the moment we're sitting in another bar on the other side of the peninsula over looking the strand where my son first drove the car (Rover 600) aged just 12 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 06:43 PM

So, Keith, you've come up with ten convictions over a protracted period and are basing a conclusion about the evils of travellers on just that. That makes you a bigot. You have utterly failed to answer the questions I asked you. You have just proved to us that you harbour anti-traveller prejudice. Well done. The thing is, you thought you'd get away with it. Just like you thought you'd get away with saying that both both Taylor and Clarke were fraudulent. There's no end to your duplicity, is there, Keith? Of course, if you answer the questions properly that I asked you instead of giving us almost nothing except for making evasive links to newspaper reports, I'll eat my words.

Hey Dave, red OR white goes with almost everything, though a red with a roast is what I prefer personally. I'm chuffed that you liked that dish. So simple! When we had it last night I think we were still polishing off a glass of white before moving on to the red.

If you like pasta, here's a slightly non-traditional one that we had tonight that we've had loads of times before. It's a take on one that's on page 99 of Nigel Slater's Real Fast Food. Very simple, though you have to be OK with garlic, tuna and capers.

Drain a tin or jar of the best tuna in olive oil (nothing else will do). We use those jars from Waitrose, though Morrisons do a very nice tin of albocore tuna in oil for £2.29. In oil, mind! Albocore is a fancy name for yellowfin tuna.

Put tuna in a bowl and add the following:

A good chopping of fresh parsley

At least one clove of finely-sliced garlic

A tablespoon of rinsed capers. Only the little ones.

Salt and pepper

Six dessert spoons of full-fat crème fraîche

Mix roughly but try not to break the tuna up too much.

You need 250g short pasta. Whatever you like, but we use gigli pasta, made in Gragnano, the true home of pasta, sold by Tesco. You won't be sorry. Boil the pasta in salted water until al dente. Drain the pasta BUT KEEP A MUGFUL OF PASTA WATER. Crucial.

Throw the pasta back in the pan, add the tuna mix and stir it in. You will definitely need to add some pasta water to loosen the mix. When you're happy with that, put into two warmed bowls and add liberal smounts of freshly-grated parmesan.

This is a superb dish! So easy! It differs from Nigel's version in that I use crème fraîche instead of double cream. Tried it both ways and we prefer the crème fraîche. Also, he doesn't mention using some pasta water to loosen the mix. You definitely need to do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 17 - 07:16 PM

You appear to be living the dream, Raggytash. Me too. Good eating, good wine, and Liverpool won the Merseyside derby convincingly. Dream goal from Coutinho. Roast lamb tomorrow. I still play the tunes on the harmonica but I can't cope with guitars, banjos and bodhrans in sessions any more because of my rotten hearing. Keep us posted. Ten times better reading than the dismal tosh emanating from Keith and his tawdry crowd. You ignore them superbly!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

Jim,
Every single one verified and you know it Keith

Not one verified, as I correctly stated.

You give us your version

I have given Israel's version.

What is your evidence for this ludicrous charge - four more press reports

Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation.

Steve,
So, Keith, you've come up with ten convictions over a protracted period and are basing a conclusion about the evils of travellers on just that.

I have reached no such "conclusion about the evils of travellers."
Only a microscopic minority have been involved, but those ten convictions since the laws were introduced in 2010 represent a massive over-representation. Stating such facts does not justify your lying rant against me, "That makes you a bigot. You have utterly failed to answer the questions I asked you. You have just proved to us that you harbour anti-traveller prejudice"

You just resort to abuse and name calling when proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 05:11 AM

"Not one verified, as I correctly stated."
Every single one verified and you know it Keith
Not one verified, as I correctly stated."
Piss off Keith - you know this is not true - your only defence if that Israel said they didn't do it
You have had ei=ye witness reports and researched accounts of the massacre and you have not offered one single fact that disproves any of this - this is now written and established history
I did not give you "me version" - I gave the accepted account account of what happened with masses of back-up information
As you say - you have given Israel's version - and nothing else - not a shred of evidence to back it up.
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case."
You have given no example of Travellers keeping slaves - that is racist hype you have been given half a dozen cases of domestic workers kept in similar conditions, of Britain filling shops with goods manufactured in slave-like conditions, - you can multiply this with the conditions many migrant workers, au pairs, workers in the catering trade, unregistered workers - even navvies - undergo in Britain and elsewhere
To suggest that the criminal act of four individual from one family can be
Were Fred and Rose West representative of Swindon or Wiltshire, Culture - how about murderer Nilson - North London culture - in any way linked to the fact they they are Travellers is totally obscene
You and your mate are a pair of rabid racists and your behaviour is polluting this site with your racist filth
Your only function on this forum is as examples of racism and bigotry at its very worst - Travellers, Irish (especially "brainwashed" children) - Muslims - you've had a go at every one of them so far - who next, I wonder
You've already dipped your toe into antisemitism by suggesting a Jewish Parliamentary plot
No wonder Brexit has plunged Britain into the chaos it has with people like you waving the flag
Do not ever suggest that ewe are lying when we accuse you of racism or extremism - that is exactly what you are - the worst of the worst
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 05:25 AM

Some more facts for you to ignore - you evil little man
And this doesn't even touch the goods bought onn our high streets manufacturd=ed by genuine slaves - which you have always refused to comment on
Slavery is only an issue with you people when there is a racist angle you can use
Jim Carroll

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-19842821
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/exploitation-of-migrant-domestic-workers-in-the-uk/
http://www.gla.gov.uk/media/1584/jrf-forced-labour-in-the-uk.pdf
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 05:36 AM

Hmmmmmm - " Swindon or Wiltshire, Culture" - OK Jim, I'm all ears. Explain, does Swindon have any particular culture that is unique to the town? How and when was is this rare and unique culture discovered? Is, if indeed there is such a thing as, Wiltshire culture in what way does it differ from Somerset or Dorset culture (If they exist). Travellers have a unique culture though don't they Jim, and they have their own unique customs and codes of behaviour, one of which would appear to require that they remain silent while their "Traveller" neighbours and relations serially abuse, mercilessly exploit, imprison and enslave 22 vulnerable members of society. Surprised they don't have songs about it Jim, or perhaps a couple of lively jigs to keep their workforce on the hop as the build peoples drives in any weather for absolutely S.F.A. in the way of wages.

By the way has it been verified that a mass grave was found underneath the Camille Chamoun Stadium in Beirut? That is what you seem to be saying. The only problem I have with that is that I have not read any reports of such a mass grave having ever been discovered. Perhaps you could give us a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 05:50 AM

More to ignore
Jim Carroll
10 things you didn't know about slavery in the UK

The UK Government estimates there are up to 13,000 people in slavery in Britain today
Only 1% of enslaved people in the UK have the chance of seeing their exploiter brought to justice
In 2015, over 3,000 people, including nearly 1,000 children, were referred to British authorities as potential victims of slavery
But nearly 40% of them were still awaiting a decision about their victim status at the end of the year
From those who have received a final decision, only less than half were supported as victims
Victims of slavery are four times less likely to be acknowledged as victims if they are non-European
Up to 34% of victims of slavery are estimated to be re-trafficked
Children are often deliberately targeted for their vulnerability
One in four victims of slavery in the UK is a child
2016 saw the first conviction and sentencing of a British businessman for human trafficking

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 05:59 AM

" I'm all ears. Explain, does Swindon have any particular culture that is unique to the town?"
Doesw Traveller culture have any particulare culture related to slavery]
What a stup=id question
Swindonians happen to live in Swindon just as Travellers happen to have been born on the road - no more
"By the way has it been verified that a mass grave was found underneath the Camille Chamoun Stadium in Beirut? "
Any more information about Falangists coming home for their holidays to do the killing
Pathetic evasion as ever
nobody knows how many are buried there - the Israelis made sure of that
Respond to the real points - your smoke screens don't work
You have never read anything on this massacre - you just invented a scenario that fits your own personal view
Feckin' eejit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 06:03 AM

A sample of ten over several years does not remotely justify the assertion that travellers are over-represented. Statistical nonsense. To make things even worse, your figures relate to just two family cases, not nine separate ones. You are smearing the whole travelling community with your insinuation that there is massive slavery issue among travellers on the basis of two rogue families. You did the same over a handful of ALLEGED antisemitism cases out of 600,000 members of the Labour Party. Don't worry, Keith. We know exactly how you work. Dishonest, disreputable, disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 06:55 AM

And he did the same with several hundred cases of criminality in a population of a million and a half Muslims - which "proved" that the entire population were implanted too rape underage women
He'd have dome well working with the Nazis to prove the Jews were an inferior race
Takes all sorts I suppose
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 07:36 AM

Jim,
You have had ei=ye witness reports and researched accounts of the massacre and you have not offered one single fact that disproves any of this - this is now written and established history

No such "eye witness" reports emerged until long after the event. Not credible.
"researched accounts of the massacre" There was a massacre, but nothing to suggest Israelis were involved.
"this is now written and established history "
Nonsense. No decent democracy holds Israel responsible.
Only nasty regimes that have real blood on their hands, and people like you.

To suggest that the criminal act of four individual from one family can be

I provided reports of ten convictions.


You've already dipped your toe into antisemitism by suggesting a Jewish Parliamentary plot

You keep repeating that ludicrous lie, but what you can never do is provide a quote of me "suggesting a Jewish Parliamentary plot" because I never have, liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 07:54 AM

Since the new slavery laws of 2010 came in to force, Travellers have been massively over-represented in the convictions.

Indy, "The arrests (Bristol Dec 2013) follow a number of cases involving the forced labour of the vulnerable at traveller camps that have gone to court over the past two years, using new legislation designed to make it easier to prosecute modern-day slave-keepers.
In the first case of its kind, four people were jailed last year after a raid at Bedfordshire site in 2011 revealed the existence of 23 dirty and emaciated men who were forced to work under fear of extreme violence.
A powerful traveller family made money out of the victims who were addicts they picked up from the streets and soup kitchens and forced to work for little money.
In a separate case, five members of an Irish traveller family were found guilty in December last year of keeping their own private workforce in Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire and paying them as little as £5 a day for their work.

Wales Online June 2016, "A (Traveller)family was jailed for total of 27 years after a court heard two men were used like slaves"

I have found only one non-Traveller case, which was of a Maoist cult leader.
Travellers are a tiny proportion of the population, so they are massively over-represented, as I correctly stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 08:22 AM

Racist shite Keith
Bring your figures not press reports
Who saiys they are "massively over-represented" apart from you
You now have the figures to compare them with
02 Apr 17 - 05:50 AM
You are a racist madman and you have been since you accused the entire Muslim population of being implanted to rape children
You need to be locked up
You really are finished here - both of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 08:59 AM

Ten convictions in just three cases going back years. There is absolutely no solid case to be made from those statistics. You are smearing the whole of the traveller community by using tendentious language such as "massive over-representation." That is just sick, sick, sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 09:46 AM

I really think it's time the moderators decided whether they want this forum used as a racist hate-site
There must coe a point when it becomes obvious that is now openly happening
Enough is enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 10:23 AM

"Swindonians happen to live in Swindon just as Travellers happen to have been born on the road - no more"

Hang on Jim it was YOU who asked a question and raised the fact that you thought that Swindon and Wiltshire had a "culture" - are you saying now that you were talking complete and utter bollocks, to use Steve Shaw's expression? I would imagine that very few "travellers" now actually travel and very few of them are "Born on the road".

Also please listen up and pay attention you Prat it was YOU who claimed that the Israelis buried bodies under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium in Beirut in 1982. Only two things wrong with that Jim:

1: The Stadium in 1982 was in ruins
2: After extensive ground works and a total reconstruction carried out by British and Lebanese construction engineers no bodies have been found

So please answer what would appear to most reasonable, intelligent and logical people - " has it been verified that a mass grave was found underneath the Camille Chamoun Stadium in Beirut?

The answer of course is NO IT HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED - NO HUMAN REMAINS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND AT THE SITE OF THE CAMILLE CHAMOUN SPORTS STADIUM - kinda pisses all over your parade Jim when you still maintain that it is a fact - but there again you wouldn't recognise a fact if it jumped up and bit you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 10:34 AM

Well we got home at 4AM after a great night which included a Brazilian man wearing a kilt playing the Piano Accordion, you couldn't make it up. He was very good too.

A bit drained today, understandably, so a few pints this afternoon and watch the Arsenal V Man City match, followed by a Rib Eye Steak, french fries, tomato and onion with a few Petit Pois for colour, no doubt washed down with a decent red.

Maybe a bit more music tonight if I can rouse myself to go out.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 10:39 AM

Jim,
Mummy and Daddy aren't going to step in and protect you from the bad kids in the neighborhood. Stop feeding the trolls!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 11:18 AM

"Stop feeding the trolls!"
Doesn't stop them using this forum for their racist propaganda Jeri - your choice
"I would imagine that very few "travellers" now actually travel and very few of them are "Born on the road""
You imagine wrong
The majority were born on the road, and those that are able choose to Travel - not easy with people like you and Keith around
Those that have settled have been forced 1: The Stadium in 1982 was in ruins"
The Stadium was used as a holding centre for the victims throughout the massacre - every account states that fact
"The smashed Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium was a natural "holding centre" for prisoners. Only two miles from Beirut airport, it had been an ammunition dump for Yasser Arafat's PLO and repeatedly bombed by Israeli jets during the 1982 siege of Beirut so that its giant, smashed exterior looked like a nightmare denture. The Palestinians had earlier mined its cavernous interior, but its vast, underground storage space and athletics changing-rooms remained intact."
"It was a familiar landmark to all of us who lived in Beirut. At mid-morning on 18 September 1982 - around the time Sana Sersawi says she was brought to the stadium - I saw hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, perhaps well over 1,000 in all, sitting in its gloomy, cavernous interior, squatting in the dust, watched over by Israeli soldiers and plainclothes Shin Beth agents and a group of men who I suspected, correctly, were Lebanese collaborators. The men sat in silence, obviously in fear."
Long after the war, the ruins of the Cité Sportive were torn down and a brand new marble stadium was built in its place, partly by the British. Pavarotti has sung there. But the testimony of what may lie beneath its foundations - and its frightful implications - will give Ariel Sharon further reason to fear an indictment.
Robert Fisk

"Even before the slaughter inside the camps had ended, Shahira Abu Rudeina says she was taken to the Cité Sportif where, in one of the underground "holding centres", she saw a retarded man, watched by Israeli soldiers, burying bodies in a pit. Her evidence might be rejected were it not for the fact that she also expressed her gratitude for an Israeli soldier – inside the Chatila camp, against all the evidence given by the Israelis – who prevented the murder of her daughters by the Phalange."
"Long after the war, the ruins of the Cité Sportif were torn down and a brand new marble stadium was built in its place, partly by the British. Pavarotti has sung there. But the testimony of what may lie beneath its foundations – and its frightful implications – might give Ariel Sharon further reason to fear an indictment. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/another-war-on-terror-another-proxy-army-another-mysterious-massacre-and-now-after-19-years-perhaps-9255784.html

Other bodies were found on the Airport Road. But the majority were never recovered. American diplomats told the NY Times that they were feared massacred in southern Lebanon. (It is possible that some lie under the new stadium built on the ruins of Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium. And, according to the UK's Independent newspaper, some dozens are also buried near the Lebanese town of Jounieh [5])

At the Sports Centre, I saw the Israeli military, as well as tanks, bulldozers and artillery, all Israeli. We also saw groups of Phalangists with the Israelis. The Sports Centre was packed with women and children. We stayed there until sunset. An Israeli came then and he said, "Everyone go to the Cola region, whoever comes back to the camp will die." We left, as they fired shots in our direction".
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2004/09/tainted_by_terr.html
I've given you eye witness accounts - where are yours?
And now for a bit of EVIDENCE TAMPERING
Now - have oyu anything to offer other than denials
No?
THought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM

Steve and Jim,
Ten convictions in just three cases going back years.

Going back just to 2010 when the new laws came in.
I have referenced four cases involving Travellers and one that did not.
I have not found any other comparable cases.
Unless you know of dozens more non-Traveller cases, then it is indisputable that they are over-represented, which is my only claim.

I was right, and your abusive attacks on me are without foundation.
Name calling and abuse is what you always do when your case collapses, and it has.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 11:51 AM

In the words of Tom Lecher "everybody hates the Jews"
The question is degree. Yes there are anti Semitic Jews too.

The difference between the anti folk in the UK and the US appears to be profound. That is because the slaughter of millions of Jews happened in your backyard. Americans feel more insulated.

Guilt, reparations, direct or remote involvement, religious teaching are all factors in your seemingly serious UK squabble that looks alive and well.

The US is free of your apparent active hate and over defensive shouting, except for teenagers. In America the new Jew is also kosher and is called a Muslim.

by all means this is sad...but True, with real and fake reasons.

That all of you can not see a way forward and continue to hate each other over the WWII Jewish Question of Hitler, is also sad.

Find something you like about each other or continue as you are, in darkness.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 11:52 AM

You simply can't argue for any sort of conclusion about anything from such a tiny statistical sample. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have it in for travellers and will clutch at any straw to blacken their reputation. You've done it with the Labour Party and you've done it with the British Pakistani community. Disgraceful behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 11:53 AM

I think it's time we listened to what the lady said Steve
"Stop feeding the trolls"
Makes sense to me

Direct Israeli complicity
"08:00am - General Amos Yaron observes the remnants of the crowd of most elderly people, women and children, who were gathered at the camp entrance at 06:00am. He announces that the women and children may leave. The men are taken to the nearby Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium for interrogation by the Israelis, who warn them that they must "reveal terrorist hideouts" because, "If you do not tell us the truth, you know that the Phalangists and Sa'ad Haddad's men are here!". Twenty-eight dead prisoners are subsequently found in the sports stadium, their hands tied behind their backs."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 11:58 AM

If you stop feeding the trolls your friends are going to be mighty hungry 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 12:07 PM

Jim, your final quoted section seems to come from Facebook.
Any idea who wrote it?

The main section comes from an Indy article by Fisk.
It concerned testimony given to a Belgian Court considering whether there was evidence to indict Sharon.
The Court decided there was not.

In all your huge post there is just one person who claims to have seen bodies being buried. Why should we believe her?
If her story was true there would have been some credible witnesses.

Remember that these people lie against Israel all the time.
Remember those nurses on the Marmara who were eye witnesses to Israelis dumping bodies overboard.
They lied. Everyone was accounted for.

Remember the eye witness at Jenin who saw massacre victim's bodies loaded onto a truck and driven off.
He lied.
Again everyone was accounted for.

Try to be less gullible Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 12:15 PM

Steve,
You simply can't argue for any sort of conclusion about anything from such a tiny statistical sample

If four of the five cases involve travellers, then they are over-represented. That is a simple fact. You do not need a statistician to work it out.

Jim, your last quote is again from Facebook. Who wrote it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 12:35 PM

More denials and nothing of your own - checkmate
No comment of the disappearance of witnesses while in Israeli custody?
Checkmate again
Hertford, Hertford Uber Alles (can't do the musical notes but I'm sure Steve can.
Don't blame you for steering clear of this particular can of worms Bobad - I think even Nick Griffin would have trouble keeping up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 12:49 PM

"It concerned testimony given to a Belgian Court considering whether there was evidence to indict Sharon.
The Court decided there was not."
Rather stupid to lie in public about something so accessible Keith
On 24 September 2003, Belgium's Supreme Court dismissed the war crimes case against Ariel Sharon, since none of the plaintiffs had Belgian nationality at the start of the case
You never learn, do you?
I trust you will not respond to this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 12:50 PM

Don't blame you for steering clear of this particular can of worms Bobad

Thanks for bringing me up again - I'll make a note of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 01:20 PM

Jim,
Rather stupid to lie in public about something so accessible Jim.

From that Indy piece you quoted from,
"Today, a Belgian appeals court will begin a hearing to decide if Prime Minister Sharon should be prosecuted for the massacre of Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut in 1982. (Belgian laws allow courts to try foreigners for war crimes committed on foreign soil.)"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/another-war-on-terror-another-proxy-army-another-mysterious-massacre-and-now-after-19-years-perhaps-9255784.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 01:28 PM

Report by Robert L Friedman in NEW YORK TIMES

"The scene was made all the more frightening, the doctors said, by the illumination flares that were being fired by Israeli troops over the camps and dropped by Israeli aircraft. A Sky Aglow With Flares"
"The throng, showing a white flag, moved from the school up Rue Mohammed Ali Beyhum to Corniche Mazraa. As they approached the Israeli checkpoint on the main boulevard, kitty-corner to the Barbir Hospital, they were stopped by an Israeli soldier. The soldier, by all accounts, was clearly surprised and probably frightened to see all of these people coming at him.
The soldier shouted in Arabic to the crowd to stay back, then went into crouch position at the corner of a building and aimed his gun at the people, who immediately started shrieking and turned around. Crowd Chooses a Spokesman
The soldier, members of the crowd recalled, then told them to send one person forward to explain what they wanted. A man was chosen and sent to speak to the Israeli.
According to the people, the spokesman told the soldier that Haddad militiamen were slaughtering civilians in the camps and that they were trying to escape.
The Israeli soldier told the spokesman that there was nothing he could do, and added that if they remained in the area, he would open fire.
People began protesting; women started weeping. The Israeli soldier then reportedly fired two volleys into the air to scatter the crowd. At that point, witnesses say, an Israeli tank rolled from Corniche Mazraa onto Rue Mohammed Ali Beyhum and chased the people a few hundred feet back toward the camps. A Witness Corroborates Account"

"Fortunately for the physician, by about 5 P.M. Friday, an International Red Cross convoy made it to the hospital and evacuated everyone left there. The doctor said that at about 5:30 P.M., as he was leaving the facility for safety, he saw at the southern end of Shatila what he estimated to be 80 to 90 bodies. They had been mixed together with sand and were being pushed by bulldozers."

Israeli co-operation with Falangists
"Whatever the Israelis knew about the massacre by Saturday morning, and however disturbed they were by the events, some of the Palestinians say the Israeli soldiers threatened to turn them over to the Phalangists if they did not cooperate. 'Don't Worry About Anything'
Saleh H., 55, quotes an Israeli soldier as telling him at the stadium: ''You are now under the protection of the Israeli defense forces. Don't worry about anything, just be honest with us. If we find out you are not honest . . . ''
He said the soldier added, ''the Phalangists are here.'' Mr. Saleh said the Israeli soldier then motioned toward the area from where the Phalangists had brought them to the stadium. Finally Ahmed, 27 years old, a teacher at the school of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Sabra camp, was asked by an Israeli if he knew any guerrillas."

"A few miles away, around 9 A.M., the first outsiders were entering Shatila and discovering the bodies. The Israeli officer in charge of the stadium interrogations, Col. Naftali Bahiry, was asked if there was any truth to reports that Phalangists were in the area of the camps.
''We asked the Phalangists to leave,'' said the colonel. ''We don't need anyone to do the job for us.''

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 03:47 PM

Jim, From your link,

At Gaza Hospital, on the other end of the camp, matters were also beginning to unravel Friday morning. Just after dawn a nurse on the eighth floor was shot and killed by a sniper, according to witnesses.

More witnesses that lied. No nurse or anyone else was hurt in the Gaza hospital, never mind killed!

This is just more uncorroborated and blatantly false propaganda.
When will you produce these "verified facts" you refer to?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 04:43 PM

Just been listening to a three piece group, father and two sons, two guitars, one banjo all great musicians and singers. Off to another pub soon where the landlord will be playing guitar and a friend of his playing accordion and/or whistle, we will no doubt to asked to join them and, no doubt, be proferred drinks as is the norm here.

The hospitality here knows no bounds!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 06:45 PM

Bloody Nora, Raggytash, you'll burn yerself out at this rate! Can't think of a better way of doing it though!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 07:10 PM

It's a hard life but someone has to do it !!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 17 - 07:56 PM

"More witnesses that lied."
Shite Keith
The only one lying here is you
You are not even telling the truth when you say you are putting Israel's case - you are not
You are making it up as you go along.
Even the Israelis are not claiming what you are saying - you don't reference to anything - you are making excuses as you need to
You drag in Jenin as a smokescreen - every combatant who has ever fought a war exaggerates the figures - Israel invariable comes up with the lowest civilian casualty figures - that is fully accepted propaganda
Every writer puts the dead of Sabra Shatila at well over a thousand - an eye witness on site did a rough count came up with 3,500 "probably more, as the number that had been shipped out or buried by the Israelis and Falangists was unknown."
Eyewitness Jewish nurse, who was there and who has since that time researched the massacre in detail and spoken to the survivors, accepts the possibility of 3,500
This is her description of the massacre
One of Israel's most infamous crimes occurred 33 years ago this week.
In September 1982, the Israeli army surrounded the Sabra neighborhood and adjacent Shatila refugee camp in southern Beirut.Israel gave its allies in a right-wing Christian militia known as the Phalange free rein to massacre a large number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians living in the area. Israeli troops even shot flares into the night sky to help the Phalangists find their targets.
Is she lying - why should a Jewish Nurse who was devoted to The State of Israel lie - why shold she spend the rest of her life dedicated to exposing Israel's murderous role in the massacre?
Remind me again how many were exaggerated at Jenin??
Israeli lying figures puts them by far ahead in the lying stakes
You accuse eye-witnesses, on the spot immediately after after the massacre om making up seeing bodies being buried in the stadium - you offer no proof - you knee-jerk denials
You are given a statement that Israeli officers colluded with the Falangists - you dismiss it an an anonymous blog
You are given the same information written by a Jewish writer in The New your Times - you pull up some shite about snipers that is not under discussion and ignore the N.Y. Times article
You are full of wind and pee Keith.
Not only are you the most extreme racist on this site - Muslims, Irish, Travellers.... but you are now a serial liar who lies publicly.
Is the New York Times writer lying when he describes the massacre and the collusion - if so why?
Perhaps he is one of your "self loathing Jews"
If you have any proof that the eye-wtnesses or thase who researched the massacres were lying - present the proof and stop making things up or avoiding the facts
You have made up lies about this massacre from day one
Like with the Muslim implants, your anti-Irish racism and now your obscene assault on the Traveller community - this will what you are judged as being for as long as you contribute to this forum - a racist, an atrocity denier and a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:59 AM

What Jim offers as "evidence"

1: Robert Fisk - what MAY lie underneath"

2: Unammed American diplomats - "It is POSSIBLE that some lie under the new stadium built on the ruins of Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium.

Hate to point this out to you - numbnuts - but the words MAY and POSSIBLE indicate unproven conjecture NOT evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 03:56 AM

What Jom offers as "evidence"
No - what Robert Fisk (or maybe our self-imposed dyslexicly childish and unimaginative friend thinks that should be "Fosk") thinks, based on his findings.
Fisk researched the massacre, interviewed the survivors and the rescuers and came up with his conclusions based on that
The Israeli bulldozers made sure we'll never know how many are buried where.
Is that the best you can come up with?
You obviouly haven't the beginnings of an idea of this massacre - you probably foined in the fray to help your floundering friend
You attempted to call into doubt the use of the stadium
"1: The Stadium in 1982 was in ruins"
You had to ask why the Falangists had to be transported from the airport
"Tell me Jim why would those militiamen and Lebanese troops need transporting from the airport? Where had they flown in from, their holidays?"
This has been covered a dozen times with documented evidence and you hadn't a ******* clue of the facts of the matter!!
That's how much you know, that's how much you've researched and that's how much you've been paying attention to this argument.
I've presented masses and masses of evidence sine I first introduced this massacre into the equation - YOU HAVE PRESENTED NOTHING - NONE - - ZILCH - NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF DOCUMENTED AND VERFIED EVIDENCE.
YOU HAVE FERRETED AND SNIDED AWAY TRYING TO DISMISS,. DISCREDIT AND DESTROY THE FACTS OF THIS MASSACRE BY PRODUCING SWEET FUCK ALL OTHER THAN YOUR OWN BIGOTED, LYING, AGENDA DRIVEN DENIALS - YOU CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT, IN YOUR OWN DISTINCTLY PATHETIC WAY, TO DO SO BY TALKING DOWN TO PEOPLE FROM YOUR MENTAL HOLE IN THE GROUND, THINKING THIS WITH FILL IN THE GAPS IN YOUR IGNORANCE, INTELLIGENCE AND HUMANITY
This is the mass murder of up to three thousand five hundred human beings we are talking about, men women and children, all without any way to defend themselves, the men shot out of hand, the children taken by the feet and dashed against walls, the women raped then slaughtered by having their throats cut - those pregnant disemboweled and the unborn children ripped from their wombs and having what life they possessed stamped into the ground.
All you pair come up with is sneery and insulting denials of any evidence that implicates the regime that continues its slaughter of anybody who gets in the way of its ethnic cleansing programme.
Hate to point it out, but that sort of defence represents human behaviour at its most obscenely inhuman
Wonder how you are on former Yugoslavia or Rwanda or the Jewish holocaust!!
It all seems like a game to you pair of sickos
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 04:10 AM

Jim,
"More witnesses that lied."
Shite Keith

Not shite but facts as related by the very nurse you just quoted.
No-one in a hospital was shot. Those "witnesses" lied.

Is she lying - why should a Jewish Nurse who was devoted to The State of Israel lie

She is no supporter of Israel, but I do not say she lies.
Her account changed over the 33 years.
"Israel gave its allies in a right-wing Christian militia known as the Phalange free rein to massacre a large number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians living in the area. "

She is repeating propaganda. Inside the hospital how would she know what was arranged between IDF and the militia?
She made no such ludicrous claim in her journal of those days.

"Israeli troops even shot flares into the night sky to help the Phalangists find their targets."

That is true. Legitimate targets.

Remind me again how many were exaggerated at Jenin??

Truck loads of bodies were claimed but only about 3 people died, and no bodies at all were removed. Every person in the camp was accounted for.

You accuse eye-witnesses, on the spot immediately after after the massacre om making up seeing bodies being buried in the stadium - you offer no proof - you knee-jerk denials

I showed you that so called eye witnesses do lie against Israel, and the story of the stadium does not stand up to scrutiny.

You are given a statement that Israeli officers colluded with the Falangists - you dismiss it an an anonymous blog

No. I asked who the writer was and what their source was.
Can you tell us?

You are given the same information written by a Jewish writer in The New your Times

I showed that some of the "facts" reported were lies. Credibility destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:02 AM

Keith - whoever lied, Israeli or survivor - it doesn't alter the main documented facts one single iota
It is fairly disgusting to deny witness statements in favour of a regime that lies consistenly about everything and hides behind over one hundred U.S vetoes to protect it from fcinf war crimes, but that's what you do
Nit picking on incidentals is how you and your brain-dead friend avoid accepting the inevitable
Piss of with your diversions - they really make no difference to what happened.
So Helen Shapiro is "repeating propaganda" that was being spouted by traumatised and wounded patients she was treating in the hospital - you are as sick as her patients to suggest such a thing
Survivors of a massacre spouting propaganda - you have a sick view of people you don't like.
Based on your previous accusations - are you dismissing the word of a Jewish nurse because you are an antisemite?
You may stick that sick defence up your atrocity denying hole as far as it will go.
Your whole defence of this ethnic cleansind regime is that it must be true because they said so and everybody else, eye witnesses (Jews included) survivor, rescue teams, human rights groups, researchers, reporters...., are all liar if they condemn Israel in any way, shape or form.
You have "showed" nothing - you have denied everything that doesn't fit your defence of these bastards
You are as sick as your friend in the games you play.
At t thought, when 'Grand Theft Auto' runs its course, perhaps there's room on the market for a new one 'Grand Rape, Disemboweling and Mass Murder'
That is the level you are basing your responses
Like Teribus, you have never produced anything and you have defended this atrocity with nothing but wheedling, inhuman denials.
You are both examples of humanity in its lowest form
SICKOS
"Truck loads of bodies were claimed but only about 3 people died"
The finally agreed figure from Jenin was 53 Palestinian dead, most of whom were civilians - and you come up with 3 - which illustrates my point perfectly.
Everybody lies about combat figures - it takes a certain type of sickness of mind to lie to defend massacres decades after the event
Jim Carroll

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

No member of the IDF carried out any massacre in any refugee camp - that is the war crime that Steve Shaw stated they were guilty of. To use Shaw's own words what he has claimed is bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

"No member of the IDF carried out any massacre in any refugee camp -"
A bit 'Titanic' - that one Teribus
The fact is the so many lies have been told by those defending this massacre that nobody knows for certain who did the killing
One thing we know for certain is that Israel facilitated and assisted it (many thanks for giving me the opportunity to make that point again - happy to oblige at any time)
"Truck loads of bodies were claimed but only about 3 people died"
Keith, just out of interest - I don't for one minute expect a response to this, but why did you find it necessary to lie so stupidly about Jenin?
You appear to have acquired some sort of a "lying implant" that makes you fo it automatically
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:41 AM

Jim,
So Helen Shapiro is "repeating propaganda" that was being spouted by traumatised and wounded patients she was treating in the hospital -

No. She was an early 60s pop singer.
Nurse Ellen Siegel did not treat any such victims in her hospital in the heart of the camp.
On the second day they were visited by a film crew, the Red Cross and an Ambassador. No-one was aware of any massacre then. The first she knew was when she left on the morning of day 3.

are you dismissing the word of a Jewish nurse because you are an antisemite?

I do not dismiss her word. I accept her journal as an accurate account. It supports Israel's version of events. She testified to the Kahan Commission.

The finally agreed figure from Jenin was 53 Palestinian dead, most of whom were civilians

That has been disproved. It was the original lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:49 AM

Wiki,
"On April 7, senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat suggested to CNN that some 500 Palestinians had been killed in the camp. Five days later, when the fighting stopped, PA Secretary Ahmed Abdel Rahman told UPI that the number was in the thousands, hinting, along with other Palestinian figures, that Israel had snatched bodies, buried Palestinians in mass graves and under the rubble of ruined buildings, and otherwise conducted on a scale compatible with genocide."
Stories of hundreds of civilians being killed in their homes as they were demolished spread throughout international media.[8] Subsequent investigations found no evidence to substantiate claims of a massacre, and official totals from Palestinian and Israeli sources confirmed between 52 and 54 Palestinians, mostly gunmen, and 23 IDF soldiers as having been killed in the fighting."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

Bloody Nora.


The war crime (which is what it was in my opinion) was facilitated by the Israeli regime. Without the IDF holding the area and surrounding the camps there would have been no massacre. Did I say that Israeli troops actually went in and did the killing? No I did not. Did Hitler go into concentration camps personally in order to expedite the Holocaust? No he did not. Was Hitler's regime guilty of a Holocaust war crime? Yes it was. Was the Israeli regime guilty of a war crime over those massacres? Well I think it was. Following the outrage, Ariel Sharon was forced to remove himself from office of defence minister. He was found to bear personal responsibility for what happened and he was defence minister in that Israeli regime. Clear enough for you, Teribus? You can argue all you like as to whether you think it was a war crime but nit-picking over who actually went in and did the killing, a matter about which there is actually no disagreement, is not part of that argument. It's just evasion.

Cue Keith coming in with his "decent democracies" idiocy...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 06:05 AM

" 52 and 54 Palestinian"
Hat's what I said - you lied - you said three
And yoiu continue to lie tabout Helen Seigal - what wa a nurse doing not traeting patients during a massacre - polishing her toenails?
An afterthought to Teribus's sinking ship response.
The fact that the Falangist witnesses disappeared while in Israeli custody indicates that, as bad as the known facts are, we are almost certainly seeing only the tip of a much larger iceberg
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:24 AM

Duuno about you Steve, but I only respond to this because I've been brought up to believe sick animals are in need of care and attention.
I think it's time we put them in their baskets and let them get some rest, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:29 AM

" Did I say that Israeli troops actually went in and did the killing? No I did not." - Shaw

The following is yours isn't it Shaw:

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:38 AM

Steve,
The war crime (which is what it was in my opinion) was facilitated by the Israeli regime.

"Facilitated implies that the massacre was intended and there was collusion.
That has not and can not be proved.
The IDF facilitated the militia to deal with fighters in the camp, a legitimate operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
Hat's what I said - you lied - you said three

Fair enough, but I was making a point about the lying not the exact numbers.
It was lied that a massacre was committed and eye witnesses lied that they had witnessed it.
Just like the lies told about bodies dumped off the Marmara and of Israeli involvement in Sabra Shatila.
These people lie about what they have seen and what Israelis do.
They can not be believed without verification.
There was no massacre at Jenin.

And yoiu continue to lie tabout Helen Seigal - what wa a nurse doing not traeting patients during a massacre - polishing her toenails?

I do not lie. I refer to her journal.
She was treating casualties of the fighting. She was not aware of there having been a massacre until she left the hospital on the morning of day three.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 08:46 AM

"Fair enough, but I was making a point about the lying not the exact numbers."
No Keith - not "fair enough" - you lied and you are quick enough to evade facts by accusing me of lying
Here you have been caught red-handed and downright stupidly protesting about someone making up casualty figures -and what do you do - you make up casualty figures
You really couldn't make that one up, it is so stupid
I suppose you were too young to have script-wrote for the Goon Show - that would have been a classic!!
"These people lie about what they have seen and what Israelis do."
The Israeli regime lies about what they do - so do you
"They can not be believed without verification."
Neither can Israel or you be believed without verification - neither have provided any verification that can be trusted - both of you have lied prodigiously
"There was no massacre at Jenin."
Stop creating smokescreens - you raised Jenin as a diversion
There is no question that Sabra Shatila took place and Israel did what they did
Please stop smearing the word of a Jewish nurse that was there - whatever you "refer to" you make a point of distorting to suit your own particular agenda - you have done this far too often to be trusted.
"Facilitated implies that the massacre was intended and there was collusion."
To facilitate can equally mean that it made possible the massacre - which is a fact - without Israeli collusion it could not have happened
Whether they planned it in advance is indicated by the Israeli remark that
''We asked the Phalangists to leave,'' said the colonel. ''We don't need anyone to do the job for us"
I have no inttention of allowing you divert away from the main facts, which are, The Sabra Shatila Massacre was a Falangist/Israel joint enterprise - Both were equally responsible, planned or unplanned.
Every abdication is that the outcome was known in advance - so senior officer could possible have believed that letting loose a bunch of armed notorious fanatics whose leader had recently been assassinated on a mass of unarmed people they believed to be responsible for that assassination could possibly have had any other outcome
What do they have for senior officers in the Israeli Army - Captain Mainwaring clones??
The fact (that you have yet to respond to) that the Falangist witnesses who were due to give evidence mysteriously disappeared while in Israeli custody shortly before they were examined, is indicative that we have only had a slight whiff of this rotten carcass of a massacre.   
"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. "
Haven't really been following this, but if that's all Steve said, he is on the nail -
It is a terrible war crime to massacre hundreds (thousands even), whether you actually get the blood on your own hands or help someone else get the blood on theirs on your behalf
Whoever paid for the hit on Kennedy, Lumumba or Allende is every bit as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger
You have a nasty dose of evasive pedantry - again, in order to wiggle away from the main points - again
It's become as habitual a tactic as Keith's "real historians", or phantom witnesses or "decent democracies"
You are nothing if not predictably unimaginative, in fact, "nothing" is probably enough
For you, the war is over Tommy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 08:52 AM

Blimey, Teribus. And that from a man who says that Keith declaring that Taylor and Clarke were fraudulent was just making a passing reference. Give over, will you. The Israeli regime was responsible. Sharon's head tolled and he was the defence minister. You have no point to make at all. You are nit-picking for the sake of it. Why don't you have a pot at Keith instead, who has just rewritten history?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 08:54 AM

The bell tolled for Sharon but it was his head wot rolled.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:03 AM

Stop creating smokescreens - you raised Jenin as a diversion

No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie.
You just believe it all without question.
Do not be so gullible.

There is no question that Sabra Shatila took place and Israel did what they did

Of course there is.
No decent democracy holds Israel responsible.

Steve, Sharon could and should have been aware of the risk of a reprisal massacre. He lost his job for that. He was not treated as a war criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:11 AM

It doesn't mean he wasn't one. Blair and Bush haven't been convicted of war crimes but I know what I think. Neither has Assad. Plenty more. I won't go on. When you're in power it's amazing how easily and quickly the ranks can close round you. Decent democracies my arse. Totally irrelevant, and you can't define what you mean by that vacuous expression. Maybe it means countries that Keith thinks agree with Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:14 AM

Just in case you'd forgotten Shaw:

shaw's WHEATCROFT Saga

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:16 AM

What is totally irrelevant Shaw - is your opinion - on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:07 AM

"No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie."
No you didn't - you were caught out in a hilarious porkie which I shall be chuckling about for some time to come
Your feeble excuse is nearly as hilarious
"Do not be so gullible."
Do not be so stupid as to believe that nobody other than a moron is going to abandon documented evidence on the basis of propaganda shite like "Israel's Enemies"
You read like a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Right-Wing Dictatorship Party"
You are a propagandist - there really is no room for people like you on a debate forum - go book a ***** hall and make your pitch
"He was not treated as a war criminal."
Not by Israel he wasn't - he was awarded for his efforts by being elected Prime Minister
He was protected from charges of war Crimes by an American veto at the U.N.
Wonder how many "innocent" Nazi war Criminals died in South America because they were never caught!!
As for your "No decent democracy" garbage
It has been revealed from secret British Government papers released into the public domain after thirty years that arch-Thatcherite, Francis Pym slated Israel for their actions at Sabra Shatila (though he did fall short of fully blaming them)
Even with this cowardly ommission in mind, this particular "decent democracy" kept his limp-wristed criticism locked away from public gaze for three decades
That's how decent these "decent democracies" that you are now basing your entire case on are
They won't even let us see the slightest criticism of Israel because "they don't wish to get involved in Israel's domestic policies"
Your mate seems to have returned to the W.W.1 trenches - safest place for him short of a 'Home for the Vulnerable Unthinking', I would have thought.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:11 AM

Steve,
The Israeli regime was responsible.

It was indirectly responsible, because it was the controlling power, but it played no role in the massacre.

Sharon's head rolled and he was the defence minister.

Again, only indirect responsibility.
Wiki,
"Israeli Defense Forces were indirectly responsible for the massacre since IDF troops held the area.[65] The commission determined that the killings carried out by a Phalangist unit acting on its own, but its entry was known to Israel and approved by Sharon."
"The commission also concluded that Sharon bore personal responsibility[65] "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge [and] not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed".

That is Israel's version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Jim,
"No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie."
No you didn't - you were caught out in a hilarious porkie which I shall be chuckling about for some time to come

No. I raised it as an example of how Israel's enemies lie, along with the example of the Marmara. The exact figures do not matter, only that there was no deliberate killing of civilians or body hiding. They lied about that in both examples, and undoubtedly about Sabra/Shatila too.

Francis Pym slated Israel for their actions at Sabra Shatila

He did not.
"Francis Pym, the British foreign secretary, cleared Israel of blame for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, where, over two days in September 1982, a Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia killed as many as 3,500 people.
Having invaded Lebanon up to Beirut, Israel allied itself with some Christian militias fighting in the Lebanese civil war. During the massacres, the Israeli army had surrounded the camps and fired flares at night to illuminate the dark at the request of the Phalangists.
But Pym, writing an initial assessment in September 1982, said Israel had been guilty only of "incompetence, miscalculation, overeagerness to clear out the remaining PLO and unwise dependence on undisciplined militia".
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/british-national-archives-releases-classified-government-documents

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM

I think you are on a winner there, Steve. Indirect responsibility is still responsibility. There are many people in prison for being indirectly responsible for something and so they should be.

If the weather there is as good as here I reckon you should chalk today up as one of the better ones. Have something extra special for tea and open another bottle of Morrisons best :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:44 AM

"That is Israel's version of events."
Quite
What a pity the facts don't bear out that claim - any of it
All a load of bollocks Keith
How many guilty criminals have stood up in the dock and said "I didn't do it?
You have no case, you never had a case and while yo act like a megaphone propaganist, you never will have a case
You have had a library's worth of evidence and what do you come up with
"ISRAEL'S ENEMIES"
I think they need another lawyer - don't you
Send for Perry Mason
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 10:51 AM

Dave, Israel accepts indirect responsibility, so no argument about that.

Jim, you claimed to have "verified facts."
You have produced not one!
You have produced no evidence to challenge Israel's version of events.
Israel's version fits the known facts much better than anything you have put up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM

Just read Keith's 10.11am post again, folks. It's a masterclass in how to contradict yourself all over the place in a few short lines. Go and have a lie down, Keith.

"Passing reference" my arse, Teribus. A blatant fib, made over two threads, that he thought he was going to get away with, having forgotten that some of us actually read papers. He's been doing it again this last few days with his "massive over-representation" tosh apropos of two court cases involving travellers. He did it with his cultural implant nonsense. I thought you were a bit of a history buff, Teribus. Well you haven't learned much from Keith's history, have you! 😂

Might take your advice, Dave, though it could be an uphill struggle as Mrs Steve thinks we shouldn't be drinking on Mondays. Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:06 AM

What has she got against Mondays!?!?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:24 AM

Today it is dull out here on the Connemara, the same could be said for this thread.

I'm off too buy some soda bread on which to place my smoked salmon this evening. I don't know why but smoked salmon is quite cheap in Ireland and some of it is smoked over peat fires giving it a delightful flavour

Might have a pint ot three as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:37 AM

Bugger. So if I'm not drinking it'll be just me. Unconscionable. I shall be having a word. The roast lamb last night was utterly sublime and there's enough cold left to go with a jacket spud and some purple sprouting out of the veg plot.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

"You have produced not one!"
Ho-ho-ho!!!
perfect way to end a wet, windy day
You have produces sweet fuck all, you never have and you never will. As well as a magnificent display of your vitriolic racism, you have added atrocity- denial in spades
Should see me though my old age comfortably
Have a good war, you two - watch out for the 'whizz-bangs
Jim Carroll
PS Don't tell any more lies otherwise you on't get your nose through the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:00 PM

What a pity that, for all your supposed education and your career as a teacher, you do not seem able to read Shaw.

"he thought he was going to get away with"??? Keith A acknowledged the error within an HOUR and corrected his omission. Thought he was going to get away with what for an hour you lying Prat?

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime." - Steve Shaw

Yes it is a terrible war crime Shaw only problem is that the IDF did not massacre hundreds of civilians" as you claimed they did - Yet ANOTHER SHAW LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Yet ANOTHER SHAW LIE.
And another attempt to save face after once again having his arse kicked from hell to breakfast - time
Grow up and stop being such a vicious git
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the galley - whoops - what a giveaway!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:51 PM

So, Teribus, do you think for one minute that Keith would have posted the correction if Steve had not pulled him up on the misrepresentation? You are, as ever, missing the entire point by a country mile but, if you do believe that the correction would have been forthcoming anyway, I just happen to have a business idea. All you need to send me is a few bank details...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

Steve,
Just read Keith's 10.11am post again, folks. It's a masterclass in how to contradict yourself all over the place in a few short lines

There are no contradictions there.
Say what you think is one and I will explain it to you.

apropos of two court cases involving travellers.

It was four cases out five.
Ten convictions against one.
For a tiny ethnic group that is unequivocally a massive over-representation.

He did it with his cultural implant nonsense.

The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me.
I said I believed it because of the credibility of those it did come from.
It is still highly credible and certainly not "nonsense"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM

Jim,
"You have produced not one!"
Ho-ho-ho!!!

Ho ho ho is right!
Not one of your much vaunted "verified facts" was ever produced.

Apart from misremembering the final death toll at Jenin (mostly gunmen. I might have been right for the civilians) identify one statement of mine that you can challenge.
More than one if you like.
Good luck with that Jim!

after once again having his arse kicked from hell to breakfast - time

I somehow missed each such incident.
Please jog our memories if such a thing really ever happened.

If anyone claimed that IDF ever "massacred hundreds of civilians" that is indeed a lie.

Dave,
So, Teribus, do you think for one minute that Keith would have posted the correction if Steve had not pulled him up on the misrepresentation?

I was happy to concede the discrepancy, but there was no deceit and I had already given the full quote. Wheatcroft had the same view as me so I did not need to misrepresent anything, and I did not.
Steve tried to make something out of nothing because he had lost the argument.
Again!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:20 PM

Back to the racist attacks on ethnic minorities
Safer ground there - they can't fight back
"The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me."
Utter and complete lies Keith but it doesn't matter
Anytbody who expresses that opinion as you did is a raving racist.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"...
It doesn't matter if the Archbishop of Canterbury told you to say it - it is your opinion and it makes you a raving racist - I already said,that, didn't I - doesn't matter - it's well worth repeating, especially in contact of your making the same thing about Travellers
May as well put your third historical statement - you can claim three of a kind then

Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
YOUrR THEME TUNE, I PRESUME
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:21 PM

Cause and effect. Those guilty of these crimes were tried under a new law. Why do you think that new law was introduced? Just for fun maybe? Or perhaps it was to cover cases such as these. Why has it only been used those few times? Maybe it has served as a deterrent or perhaps it only ever intended to catch these cases which may have otherwise fallen through the net. Once again we are faced with facts that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders. Those more open minded realise that such facts can be indicative of many things other than the right wing agenda driven demonisation of people.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 02:23 PM

So, Keith, had Steve not have reminded us that the paper did not say what you said it did, would you have ever issued a correction?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 03:00 PM

Jim,
"The theory that culture was responsible did not come from me."
Utter and complete lies Keith but it doesn't matter
Anytbody who expresses that opinion as you did is a raving racist.

Utter and complete fact Jim, and they were all Left Wing and mostly Pakistani themselves, so all your name calling is futile.
It is all you can do when you lose.

Dave,
So, Keith, had Steve not have reminded us that the paper did not say what you said it did, would you have ever issued a correction?

I would need someone to draw it to my attention and object, as Steve did.

Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders.

Please quote me saying such shit, or withdraw that ridiculous accusation Dave.

Once again we are faced with facts that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation.
There may be many possible explanations, but it is a massive over-representation and that is all I ever claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 04:13 PM

Yes, it is shit isn't it Keith. Just like your 'it is all I ever claimed' shit. Throw enough shit and some will stick. And you have thrown more shit than the chimps at Chester zoo.

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

I and many others can see through your shit and have had enough. Go and play your games with someone else.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 05:40 PM

Of course Keith wouldn't have issued a correction had he not been challenged. It would have stood for ever more, and that was his clear intent as he'd made the false claim in two threads. Clear intent to deceive. It isn't as if the original article was complicated or difficult to interpret, Dave. Dead simple. "Taylor rather vulgar and Clark largely fraudulent" became "Taylor and Clark fraudulent." That is no accident. Even Keith isn't thick enough to do that by accident, and he did it twice. Still, it must be OK because Teribus, nitpicker-in-chief with the rest of us, excused it as being a "passing reference." 😂 And, Bill, I didn't say that the IDF carried out the slaughter, as much as you'd like me to have done. All there in the thread!

By the way, Dave, I prevailed on the wine front with Mrs Steve. A heavy day in the garden shifting one ton of hardcore, one ton of gravel and one ton of topsoil led me into a deserving state. Washed down the cold lamb, jacket spud with lashings of butter and purple sprouting beautifully. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 17 - 09:03 PM

Well Gnome, talking about missing the point and misrepresentation, as these things seem important to you between trips to the pantry. Here's the exchange once again:

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

I am quite prepared to discuss things that have happened. I have not interest in discussing points based on conjecture. What we can see clearly is that for three years now Steve Shaw has deliberately misrepresented straight facts about the exchange quoted above by telling barefaced lies and that seems to be a point that you Gnome have missed by a Kerry Mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 01:44 AM

No matter how often you cut and paste it, Teribus, the fact remains that without Steve's intervention the false claim would have remained. Not conjecture. Even Keith says the same.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 02:46 AM

Not going to argue about conjecture, but if it is conjecture you want, your premise is doubtful as the relevant passage was subsequently quoted in full five times later in that thread, who is to say that that would not have happened at least once without Shaw's intervention.

Still doesn't get round Shaw's subsequent deliberate barefaced lies and misrepresentation which it appears does not matter to you at all, but as a proven lying bastard it does tend to colour my opinion of anything he posts.

On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about.

Your pal Jim Carroll tried to say that the Israelis secretly disposed of 3,500 bodies by burying under a sports stadium they constructed in Beirut in 1982. Carroll misrepresents these claims as what he calls verified fact citing eye-witnesses who by their own accounts if you read them saw nothing of the sort. Other easily demonstrated discrepancies regarding this fairy-tale of Carroll's are:

1: Nobody was taken to the Camille Chamoun Stadium until after the massacre by the Christian Phalange Militia had ended.

2: The Israelis constructed nothing on that site at the time. The Stadium had been destroyed by them as the PLO used it as an ammunition dump.

3: Destroyed in 1982 the Stadium was not rebuilt until 1997, when it was completely rebuilt by British and Lebanese engineers - In that total rebuild no bodies, or human remains were unearthed - very strange that considering there were supposed to be 3,500 bodies buried there in haste and in secret in 1982.

4: The stadium was further improved and reinforced so that it could withstand an earthquake of 8.6 on the Richter scale in 2015, that work involved extensive and very deep ground works, and yet, as in 1997 no bodies, or human remains were unearthed.

Now all of that Gnome suggests to me that there were no bodies buried under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium as described by Jim Carroll and that the whole story was a fabrication, a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:08 AM

Now all of that Gnome suggests to me that there were no bodies buried under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium

Why are you telling me? I am not even involved in that discussion.

My only point has been that the phrase fraudulent to describe both books was false.

Do try to focus on what people are actually talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:11 AM

"he'd made the false claim in two threads" - Steve Shaw

Good heavens Shaw caught out in yet another lie.

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Now the perception of the Great War that had formed in the late 1920s was strengthened all over again. Working-class lads had been sent like sheep to the slaughter by brutal and stupid generals, callously indifferent to the suffering they inflicted, a theme played much later and with repellent facetiousness by Blackadder. The upper classes as a whole stood condemned for wanton bloodshed."

The above was the first direct quotation from Geoffrey Wheatcroft's article in the Guardian by Keith A of Hertford and it is an accurate quote in all respects. PRIOR TO Keith A quoting that passage from Wheatcroft's article, there had been a link to the complete article posted by a GUEST. AFTER Keith A's post there was no other mention of this article or reference to it by anyone else on the thread that was subsequently closed on or round the 18th December, 2014.

So Shaw in which two threads did Keith a according to you make these false claims? (My bet folks is that Shaw will ignore this question and go desperately quiet on the subject - We may however be regaled at length on the subject of what next will be projected from between the cheeks his arse)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:19 AM

"Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation."
I think it's time we put a stop to this hate campaign ourselves
When the moderator said "don't feed the troll", this is exactly what we are doin by responding t this behaviour.
We should really know better, after all, it's not as if it hasn't happened before.
Keith started his hate crusade back on the Muslim thread - he took the behaviour of a handful of criminals who happened to be Muslims, deliberately misused a term that had appeared in the press, "over-representation", and applied the actions of those handful of criminals to claim they represented the culture of the Muslim People of Britain, a million and a half of them - he even went as far as to invent a "cultural implant" to cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community.
He has maintained that stance since, though he has invented a secret army of "witnesses" (who he refuses to quote", who, he claims, put the idea into his head.
AS far as I am concerned, that is pretty extreme stuff.
The last time anybody went so far as to publicly make a cultural link to a serious crime wa when the Nazis came up with cultural theories about the Jews - we know the outcome of that one only too well.
Not long after this, we got into an argument about the Irish Famine, in the course of which a historian was produced who had explained that, after Independence the new Irish State revised its education system to include the parts of history that had been omitted from the schools under the centuries of British rule - that of the Irish people who acted independently from the behavior imposed by the British controlled administration and had fought for self expression and self - government, the blossoming of Irish literature a movement now referred to in Ireland as 'The Irish Renaissance'.
Keith leaped on the explanation (by historian, Christine Kinealy) and transformed it into "brainwashing" - all of a sudden we had an entire young population of Irish schoolchildren who had been "brainwashed to hate the British", though Keith as never at any time able to explain how that "hatred manifested itself - the Irish, in general, don't "hate" anybody, (though they do have Keith's problem with Travellers that they have recently taken serious steps to rectify).
Now he's started seriously on Travellers.
He has taken the criminal behaviour of a minute number of criminals who happen to be Travellers, has picked up a term used by the press, slave-like conditions", and invented a "massive over-representation of slave-owning within the Travelling community"
Nobody, not even in the sewer-press, has ever made such a claim - this is entirely out of Keith's sick mind.
The incident is now a thing of the past, the press and society in general has forgotten the incident and it is remembered only as the act of a few criminals.
Keith has taken to it like a duck (or should that be a leech) to water and is now using it to denigrate and smear an entire community who really do have enough problems to cope with.
It is only a matter of time before he comes up with another "cultural implant" theory to back his claims
I think our moderator is right - by "feeding the troll" we are giving him the soapbox he needs to spread his hate and distrust.
I detested Margaret Thatcher every bit as much as a detest people who deliberately spread cultural and racial hatred and fear, but her saying "oxygen of publicity" is a very useful one.
Please, let's STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.
Jim Carroll
I have little doubt that this will be passed off as "lies" and "a personal attack", but every single word I have written is verifiable and tucked away in varios parts of the archive of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:26 AM

"My only point has been that the phrase fraudulent to describe both books was false."

And the error was acknowledged and corrected within an hour of it being pointed out - something that you seem to fail to acknowledge. What else is patently obvious that you appear to be blind to is that your pal Shaw since that correction was made has constantly and deliberately misrepresented and lied about there being any correction or any admission of error.

HERE IT IS AGAIN GNOME

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

Your pal Steve Shaw is a lying bastard Gnome, there it is displayed above for all to see, and everytime Wheatcroft is brought up that will be posted to set the record straight. After all you did say that you weren't too keen on people misrepresenting things didn't you? Or, like your pal Shaw, are you a liar and a hypocrite too?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:45 AM

There was no deception or intent to deceive.
I had no need to change anything he said, because Wheatcroft's piece supported my case and ridiculed yours.

That was why Steve was reduced to making something from nothing.
It is what he does when he loses.

Dave, you accused me of saying something I never had or would say.
That is your different morality.
You lied about me in an attempt to further your case.
That is your different, shitty morality.

I have not played games.
It is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct.
Your shitty morality allows you to lie about that for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:49 AM

Jim, you said you had "verified facts" to back your case on Sabra.
So where are they?

You have also been unable to fault a single statement of from Teribus or me.

That is because we have a case and you do not.
You lose.
Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:53 AM

Dave,
Not conjecture. Even Keith says the same.

No I do not. I said I would need my attention drawn to it, liar.
How else would I know it needed correcting otherwise, liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:11 AM

because Wheatcroft's piece supported my case and ridiculed yours.

So, what was my case then, Keith?

No lie. You said that you would need your attention drawing to it to change it. I said that unless Steve had drawn your attention to it it would have remained as a false statement. How is that a lie?

Oh, and good to see that you are keeping to your statement that you never resort to personal abuse.

Your shitty morality allows you to lie about that for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

And you have the temerity to say you don't play games. You say one thing and mean another all the time. Chances are you will still deny personal abuse even in the light of the above.

At least we have drawn out the real Keith and now everyone can see you for what you really are.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:13 AM

"You have also been unable to fault a single statement of from Teribus or me.
That is because we have a case and you do not.
You lose.
Again."
Which sums up everything you post to this forum Keith - you are using it as an opportunity to spread your hate and mistrust.
You have no interest in debating or sharing your ideas - it is about "winning and losing"
Nobody "wins or loses" and only you even consider it as a reason for debate
I'm sure that the masses and masses of information you have provided have swayed everybody to your arguments and ideas - of course they have!!!!!!!
Maybe you will find more satisfaction in Euro-vision or one of the dancing programmes
There really is no room for "winners and losers" here.
I'd like to think I have dragged your sick campaign out into the open, but the pair of you have done that far better than any of us - Teribus with his blustering arrogance and you with your frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of foreigners and those from a different culture
I seriously hope that your recent vitriolic behaviour will mean you will never be taken seriously again on this forum.
You really are something - the pair of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:23 AM

Dave,
the fact remains that without Steve's intervention the false claim would have remained.

Obviously I could not correct something if I did not know needed correction, but it did not require an "intervention" falsely accusing me of lying.
I had no need to lie about what Wheatcroft said. He was on my side.

Drawing a slip to someone's attention is quite different to such an "intervention."

I do not play games.
It is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct.
Why did you lie I had said more?
Your shitty morality allows you to lie for your own nasty, devious purposes.
Immoral liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

Jim,
- you are using it as an opportunity to spread your hate and mistrust.

No Jim.
Your case against Israel is based on hate and mistrust.
We just presented you with the other side of the story.
The side that stands up to actual scrutiny, unlike yours based only on hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:42 AM

Keep it up by all means, Keith, I am completely underwhelmed by your attempt at abuse. It is pretty poor even by the standards set by your mate. But I will give you some advice. Never again say that you do not resort to personal abuse or you can be certain your feeble attempt will be called as evidence to the contrary.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 05:08 AM

"On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about."

I never said this in the first place! I do keep trying to tell you, you know. Do you lie in bed of a night repeating something to yourself that you want to be true, but isn't, like a mantra, than wake up in the morning thinking it's really true? If you can't get a really simple thing like that right, rather like Keith with his "fraudulent", you haven't got a hope in hell of getting anyone to believe anything else you say.

As for keeping desperately quiet, well what else is there to say really? All I need to do is to keep desperately quiet and watch with amusement as you cut and paste your nonsense yet again and observe Keith as he unapologetically prattles on about how he triumphantly defeated me, made us all lose, yet doesn't play games, and predict when he will next mention decent democracies or bring up Labour's "serious antisemitism problem" or insinuate to us what bastards all travellers might be because of two court cases in four years. No wonder I keep accidentally wanting to mention "fraudulent" every time Keith posts. As for you, calm down, dear!   

I'm not surprised the mods leave this festering thread running. There is too much comedy to be had. Think I need a laugh this morning so I think I'll say "Wheatcroft" and set you off again, like Blackadder deliberately saying Macbeth. Now there a picture to conjure! I can just envisage you and Keith doing pat-a-cake with each other's hands and chanting "Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends!" followed by tweaking each other's noses. Shall we give it a whirl?

Ahem


Wheatcroft....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:08 AM

"t is a simple, unequivocal fact that I have only spoken of an over-representation and that is factually correct."
Then produce someone else saying it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 07:05 AM

A final word on Keith's insitence that I invented the claim that No Traveller signs were not common
Just to preempt his saying that he never made such an accusation
Nor has anyone else except you Jim!
How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?

This - from a Traveller newspaper - The Traveller Times, dated June 19th following the victorious case against J D Weatherspoons
It described, from personal experience, that Travellers were not only refused service in pubs, but also "restaurants, hotels, clubs, taxis, bowling alleys and other businesses"
I've no doubt that, as it doesn't suit Keith and Teribus's racist agenda, it will be passed off as more inventions by "lying eye-witnesses"
I very much doubt if an apology or a retraction will be forthcoming so there's an end to this particular stinking saga
Did you "win" that one as well Keith!!!
Jim Carroll

"No Travellers"? No more, say lawyers who fought Wetherspoon and won
Tide turns against "No Travellers allowed" after Wetherspoons cases
Mobile phones put the power to get evidence in your hands
Lawyers win compensation for Travellers turned away due to race
"We want to hear from victims of blatant racism", say Howe & Co
"The last bastion of acceptable racism has come crashing down. It is dead." These are the clarion calls and headlines that have greeted the landmark legal victories of Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers against the pub giant Wetherspoon, the largest pub chain in the UK with over 930 pubs.
We all know this has been going on for years: pubs, restaurants, hotels, clubs, taxis, bowling alleys and other businesses refusing entrance and service because you're a Traveller or Gypsy, or even because you're a friend of associate of Travellers.
"Sorry boys, can't serve you today." "Sorry ladies, no entry today I'm afraid."   It happens so often that some Gypsy and Traveller people just accept it as part of their lot in life. "Don't bother going in there, you won't get a pint."
But being refused service because of your race is not your lot in life, it is against the law. These recent court judgments show that at last, judges are starting to understand the grinding, everyday racism that Gypsies and Travellers have to put up with. Compensation is being awarded. We are the lawyers who won the case against Wetherspoon, and if you've experienced discrimination like this and can prove it, read on, because we can help YOU.
Make no mistake about it, the fight for equal treatment for Gypsies and Travellers has had an almighty boost from the seminal judgment of Judge Hand QC in the case of The Traveller Movement and others v JD Wetherspoon plc handed down on 18 May 2015 and from the following open admission of unlawful race discrimination made by Wetherspoon two weeks later in a second case brought by Irish Travellers in Cambridge. It's like buses – you wait for years for a good case to come along and suddenly there are two of them!
The facts are typical of cases where businesses discriminate against Travellers. In November 2011 the Traveller Movement held its annual conference in north London in a building next door to a Wetherspoon pub, "the Coronet". At the end of the conference delegates left the conference hall to go for a social drink next door. The first group to approach the pub included two Traveller women, a priest, a solicitor, and a policeman. Bouncers blocked their entrance with words to the effect of 'you're not coming in because you're from the Traveller conference'. In court Traveller and Gypsy witnesses, with immense dignity, exposed gut wrenching raw emotions of what it is like to have shouldered years and years of blatant racism.
The judge got it. He understood what it is all about. He said it all came down to "stereotypical assumptions", to "racial stereotyping" by the manager of the pub. The judge said that such attitudes could be boiled down to the "crude proposition that whenever Irish Travellers and English Gypsies go to public houses violent disorder is inevitable because that is how they behave". The judge found the pub to guilty of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and awarded each refused person £3,000 compensation for their hurt to feelings for "being temporarily denied a social occasion in the most convenient venue". The pub chain has to payout damages totalling £24,000. It's a wake-up call for service providers to stop their racist treatment of Travellers and Gypsies.
In the second case a group of Travellers went out in Cambridge on 27 February 2015 to celebrate the birth of a child and the birthdays of two members of the group. Several of them approached the doors to the Tivoli pub to be told "No Travellers tonight", although at first the bouncers and manager claimed there was a "bookings only policy" – how often are lame excuses used to mask the real issue of unlawful race discrimination. On the back of the court win in the first case, Wetherspoon caved in and openly admitted unlawful direct discrimination, offering each person refused entrance £3,500 in compensation.
Enough is enough. We all know of too many examples of wedding receptions cancelled at the last minute, of restaurants taking money up front, of restaurants happy to take your money for a take-away but not prepared to let you sit down, of pubs and clubs refusing entrance or throwing you out. There are too many examples of "not your kind", of "not your type". No longer do you have to move on to the next pub or the next club in the hope that someone will let you in. No longer do you have to be embarrassed and humiliated feeling somehow second-class. No longer do you have to hide your proud identity.
My law firm, Howe & Co in London, won the two Wetherspoon cases. I was the solicitor barred at the doors of the Coronet pub in the first Wetherspoon case, as I had been at the conference because I am a member of the board of the Traveller Movement. Howe & Co is absolutely committed to stamping out this prejudice wherever it raises its ugly head.
We have set up a powerful campaign team in Howe & Co to fight these cases. We want to hear from anyone who has been the victim of blatant racism and help them win compensation and get formal apologies. We take on these cases on a no-win no-fee basis, or with the help of Legal Aid.
You can help. Mobile phones are providing a revolution in proving discrimination claims. If you are a victim of discriminatory behaviour immediately record the incident on your phone. Take a video of what is happening. Make a sound recording. Ask the person discriminating against you if it is because you are a Traveller?   Record the reasons given for the refusal of service. If there are independent witnesses to the incident ask for their details.
The team of lawyers working on this campaign at Howe & Co includes our three partners – Martin Howe, Kieran O'Rourke and David Enright.   Together we can bring an end to this nasty soul-destroying prejudice and if service providers persist in their unlawful conduct we will make them pay in compensation, costs and loss of reputation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 07:34 AM

"I'm not surprised the mods leave this festering thread running. There is too much comedy to be had.!".....Steve.


There certainly is, but the laughter is hollow. It is sad to see you and your little gang take such a beating when you have nothing to defend yourselves with intellectually or factually.
As I said before stupid spoiled children, too dense to be ashamed of your behaviour in discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 07:56 AM

Nothing constructive to add as usual then, ake?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 08:13 AM

"Nothing constructive to add as usual then, ake?"
Nope - no Homosexuals around to give a kicking yo or Muslims to Paki-bash - and Trump's war with the American people doesn't bear mentioning
"As I said before stupid spoiled children, too dense to be ashamed of your behaviour in discussion"
As the moderator said "don't feed the Troll"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 08:27 AM

Please, let's STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.

Carroll's usual fallback when the floor is being wiped with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM

It's just been reported that a British couple, Keith Baker and wife kidnapped a woman with learning deficiencies, from England, moved her to Craigavon, in Northern Ireland and both raped and sexually assaulted her over a period of eight years
Their victim was kept in "slave-like conditions over that period, where she was staved,beaten and imprisoned in appallingly filthy conditions
The neighbours say they had no idea off what was going on - one neighbour has just said "I though it was only domestic abuse". !!!!
Other women have come forward to report similar treatment, one woman had had three of Baker's children
The Bakers met when they worked together for the Salvation Army
Now is this an English, Northern Irish or Christian (Salvation Army) example of an "over-representation" of sexual slavery
Answers on a postcard please.
CHRISTIAN SLAVERY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM

"On another of your pals misrepresentations - No IDF soldier massacred any inhabitants of any refugee camp - Another Shaw lie you don't seem fussed about." - Teribus

"I never said this in the first place! I do keep trying to tell you, you know." - Bleats Shaw

But from past experience we all know that Shaw is a lying git and guess what? We've caught him at it again!!!!

Steve Shaw - 31 Mar 17 - 02:33 PM

"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things.

Seems to me that what you have stated quite clearly above there, you lying git, is that "the Israeli regime" massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps - you said "when they did those things.

Only trouble with that of course you lying git is:

1: The Israeli regime (Who were not present in Beirut at the time) didn't massacre anybody in any refugee camp, it would have been impossible for them to do so - THEY WEREN'T THERE.

2: The IDF (Largely composed of Jewish Israeli citizens, WHO WERE in Beirut at the time) could not have massacred hundreds of civilians because they never entered the Sabra-Shatila Camps.

3: The massacre was carried out by Lebanese Christian Phalangist Militiamen and this massacre became one of a series of massacres that occurred during Lebanon's civil war.

So Shaw on this thread alone your lies related to the following subjects have been clearly exposed:

1: Wheatcroft and your lie about Keith A never having acknowledged an error he made, or the fact that he corrected it as soon as you pointed it out to him.

2: You lied further when you said that he deliberately repeated his error twice on the WWI, was No Mans Land Thread - I have looked through that thread and he didn't only two references to the Wheatcroft Article in that thread - a link to the complete article by an unnamed GUEST, and the second a quoted passage from the article by Keith A that was 100% accurate.

3: You lied when you stated that the Israeli regime was guilty of a war crime in that they had massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps they hadn't - it was a total misrepresentation on your part.

4: You lied when you then claimed that you had not said that Israelis had massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps when it is as clear as the nose on your face that you did.

Tell me Shaw have always been an inveterate liar and a hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM

No, Woodcock. But you've always come here with a narrow, predetermined agenda about every topic you discuss and a propensity, to put it kindly, for missing the point (a nice way of saying that you deliberately set out to misrepresent). No-one is going to keep on reading forever your brainless and repetitive rants in which you attack anyone who even vaguely disagree with you and defend the indefensible, unless you have a little army of mindless sycophants to hand, of course. Now why don't you toddle off and post something in the music section? One post up there in about six months and precious little before that? You only come here to bluster and troll, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

Here is a fine example of his hypocrisy in this quote. He who often bleats "weasel words" at others comes out with this gem:

I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM

"Seems to me that what you have stated quite clearly above there, you lying git, is that "the Israeli regime" massacred hundreds of civilians in refugee camps "
Whatever is seems to you - he didn't say any such thing - yo are the one porkying again
"THEY WEREN'T THERE."
Wheren't where - tey were turning refugees back from escaping - or maybe they sent their mothers to do that
" because they never entered the Sabra-Shatila Camps."
Not what was tated by eye witnesses
"The massacre was carried out by Lebanese Christian Phalangist Militiamen"
Who couldn't have carried out the massacre without the co-operation and active assisstance of the Israelis
You really are a load of arrogant bollocks
Not a shred of evidence to back up your shitty massacre denials
"I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things."
I watched Jewish heads of Shin Bet say this to camera
I read an Israeli General say exactly this
Jews I have been friendly with were saying this as far back as the mid- 1960s
Holocaust survivors said this after the Gaza massacres
Where's the hypocricy
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-jewish-mp-israel-acting-like-the-nazis-who-forced-my-family-to-flee-from-poland-28478952.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 02:36 PM

GOTCHA Shaw - Steve Shaw - 04 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM - What's the matter? There is one way to avoid being exposed as a lying git and is man up admit your error and pass on refraining from misrepresentations and telling other lies.

YOU of all people do not get to direct what and where people post on this forum you lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:03 PM

Dave,
Keep it up by all means, Keith, I am completely underwhelmed by your attempt at abuse. It is pretty poor even by the standards set by your mate. But I will give you some advice. Never again say that you do not resort to personal abuse or you can be certain your feeble attempt will be called as evidence to the contrary.

It was not personal abuse Dave. I don't do that.
I am disparaging the morality that allows you to pursue me because once, three years ago, I said "fraudulent" instead of "vulgar and fraudulent," while you tell nasty, vicious lies about me, claiming I said things I never have or would.
You blatantly lied in a particularly offensive way. I just dropped one word that did not even change the meaning of what was said.
Your morality is shit Dave, but I would still not subject you or anyone else to personal abuse.
I am better than that.
Different morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:14 PM

Steve,
"I never said this in the first place! I do keep trying to tell you, you know."

You did say it, but now you deny it!

So do you believe they massacred refugees or not?

Jim,
A final word on Keith's insitence that I invented the claim that No Traveller signs were not common

We all know the old Weatherspoons story. You have quoted it enough times.
That does not mean the signs are "common throughout Britain."
They are not.
If they were one of us who live here would have seen one.
We still have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 03:36 PM

Indy headline a few minutes ago,

"Ken Livingstone suspended for another year from Labour after bringing party 'into disrepute' over Hitler Zionism remarks
It was widely expected that Mr Livingstone would be expelled from the party and some Labour MPs will likely see his punishment for breaching party rules as lenient"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:17 PM

The penalty of another year suspension is not so much lenient as no real punishment at all. What message is that supposed to send to everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 04:29 PM

It was not personal abuse Dave. I don't do that.
...
You blatantly lied in a particularly offensive way. I just dropped one word that did not even change the meaning of what was said.
Your morality is shit Dave, but I would still not subject you or anyone else to personal abuse.

So telling someone that their morality is shit and that they have lied is not personal? Does anyone else see what is contradictory with the above statements?

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

Still, it matters not one jot. I was going to go to the gym tonight but seeing as it was such good weather decided to go for a walk instead. Set off as the church clock was chiming 6 and returned as it chimed 8. In between I went up the 'clough', a beautiful wooded stream, formerly part of Sutton Hall. Beyond the defined paths it goes up the valley quite steeply and it was rather muddy so I certainly did more than my workout. The wild garlic was abundant in the woods and the squirrels were busy doing whatever it is squirrels do. Past the top of the valley I wandered past a couple of farms, one where the farmer was busy trying to get his chickens in their hen house for the night. Looked fun! Walked back down the lane and as the sun was on its way down the bird song was glorious. The view down Airedale towards Embsay Crag was stunning in the late afternoon light. Many gardens had their forsythia in bloom plus plenty of other spring flowers I did not recognise. The blackthorn bloom is abundant but the hawthorn is just coming into leaf - So cast not a clout yet :-) As I got into the village I could not resist calling in my local for a swift pint of superbly kept Black Sheep. What more can a man ask for?

I wonder whether some on here ever stop to enjoy the simple things of life and if not, could that be a reason for the bile and bitterness we regularly see. Take it from me, Keith, when there is such joy to be had on my own doorstep your opinions and tortuous arguments fade into absolute insignificance. Make the most of whatever Hertford has to offer. If you cannot get out into the countryside try reading or taking in a film. Anything is better than trying to win points from people who are not even interested in the same game as you.

All the best

DtG

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

I took a drive this morning across the Bog Road, eight miles of barren, bleak, desolate land that is utterly and sublimely beautiful. At first appearance it looks incapable of supporting any human life, but once you know how to look and what to look for I found the remains of at least 6 houses. So people at one time must have eeked a living out of it.

Superb and serene, the only sound the wind and the bird song. A wonder to behold and one that I try to taste every few days when I'm out here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 05:48 PM

It's my party, not yours, so bugger off, Iains.

Touched a nerve, have we, Bill? One puny post in the music section from you in six months when I looked a couple of days ago. Not a lot more before that either. You are in this forum under false pretences. You have little or no interest in the music it seems (it seems - what else save your lack of above-line posting is there to go off?), yet you come here to lambast and insult anyone who dares to disagree with you. This forum is nothing more to you than an outlet for your spleen. Go on, prove I'm wrong. Post something worth reading above the line, you charlatan.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:07 PM

Keithie baby, if I said that IDF soldiers went into the camps to kill people, I would be obliged if you could provide the quote. It's my opinion, take it or leave it, that the Israeli regime of the time was responsible for the massacres. Their troops were in total control of the area and they stood aside to allow the Christian phalangists, their allies, to enter those camps to do the killing. If you reject that you are in a very small minority and I suggest that you go and buy a history book written by a living historian in the last thirty years, preferably one on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. It will assuredly confirm what I've just said, what I've always accepted and what I've never strayed from. Gosh, will my patience know no bounds?

Ahem.


WHEATCROFT!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:12 PM

Raggytash, you are clearly living the dream. Actually, living in north Cornwall on sunny spring days like today, I sort of know what you're feeling. I was in your area in 1977 and it was desolate but gorgeous (it wasn't a good summer!). One day...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 17 - 06:44 PM

"... the morality that allows you to pursue me because once, three years ago, I said "fraudulent" instead of "vulgar and fraudulent"..

Ah, but it isn't that simple, is it, Keithie?   Sounds like a peccadillo the way you say it here. But it wasn't like that, was it? You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once. You want us to think that you're not thick and that you are the bearer of the sword of truth. But you read the Guardian the same as I did that day (unfortunately for you), and only a complete imbecile would have "innocently" made that mistake. It was so easy to interpret. But you thought you'd try to fool us. You had an agenda to prove us wrong, and, like those bad cops who have to get a result at all costs, you decided to lie. So Keith, what's it to be? Are you a liar or are you an imbecile? We'll accept either, I promise!

Are you there, Teribus?

Ahem.

WHEATCROFT!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:53 AM

Ahem - WHEATCROFT!!!! - Steve Shaw - LYING GIT

"You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once". - [Steve Shaw LIE]

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

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

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

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

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

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

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

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

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

That is the actual exchange you lying git, so where did he say it more than once?

Just remember folks that everytime Steve Shaw mentions WHEATCROFT (With or without the "Ahem" or the "Wheee"), all he is in fact doing is pointing up the fact that he is a lying bastard who has been caught out, who is too cowardly to acknowledge or own up to HIS mistake (Unlike Keith A of Hertford who Shaw and his pals have been stalking and mobbing on this forum now for over four years).

Oh by the way Shaw, couple of weeks have gone by now, and guess what? I'm still here, bobad is still here, Akenaton is still here, Iains is still here, Keith A of Hertford is still here - Your prediction was that bombarded by inane waffle from you and your pals we'd all be driven from the forum - just chalk it up as something else you got wrong - lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:41 AM

"We all know the old Weatherspoons story. You have quoted it enough times."
You have a full description of how the Travellers are treated by a whole string of businesses in that article - your refusal to respond to says all that needs to be said about your cultural bigotry
The article points out the ongoing refusal to serve Travellers, you refuse to respond to that
You have not, on any occasion, even responded to the Wheatherspoon -case - it doesn't suit your bigoted racism
if these signs are not common, prove it - you have been given masses of evidence that they are
There are plenty of reasons why you haven't seen one - you have been told them, but the most likely one is that, like the good Christian you claim to be, you chose to pass by on the other side
You are a vicious racist twat
You refuse to tell us whether the account of the enslaving of a woman for eight years is a "massive over-representation of Christian slavery - if numerous cases of this Christian enslaving women is not a massive over-representation, why is it with Travellers?
Tou continue to call people liars yet you are the greatest proven liar on this forum - you have been given example after example of those lies and you ignore them and ask for more examples
To preempt your doing so again - if you don't tell lies, give us examples of your disgustingly racist "implant" theory.
ou won't of course, because it is the the most ongoing lie that you or anybody on this forum has told.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:50 AM

"you come here to lambast and insult anyone who dares to disagree with you." - the bleat of an increasingly frazzled lying git

Well no actually Shaw I don't. What I do is I respond to the sort of cliched rhetoric, lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and myths posted by such as yourself and your pals when you are engaged in mobbing other members of this forum usually on subjects you do not have the foggiest notion about.

That I do using logic, reason, common sense backed up by detail and facts that you and your pals somehow find impossible to refute, counter, or challenge.

Your default position is to throw out personal insult accompanied by downright lies coupled to baseless accusations and allegations (Your latest, another lie in an ever lengthening line of them, accuses Keith A of Hertford stating that the works of AJP Taylor and Alan Clark were "fraudulent" on more than one occasion - He did in fact make that mistake in a passing reference only once at the tail end of a post specifically addressing points made to him by Jim Carroll. When it was brought to his attention he immediately acknowledged the error and corrected it.).

Once the baseless accusations have been exposed and shown to be what they are you next resort to thread drift and deflection which finally lapses into inane waffle that for some bizarre reason at the moment seems to centre around what you stuff down your digestive tract.

Hate to burst your bubble Shaw but you do not run this site, you do not dictate who posts what and where. Moderators on this forum have publicly frequently censured you and your pals for your conduct on this site - they have never once addressed any such remarks to me in public or in private.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:16 AM

That I do using logic, reason, common sense backed up by detail and facts

You forgot to mention insults, invective and bluster. A discussion (remember - This is a discussion forum, not a debating society. You said it.) is as much about interacting with your fellow man as it is about the topic itself. What you state you gain in the above you more than lose in interpersonal skills.

they have never once addressed any such remarks to me in public or in private.

Maybe not to you, Teribus, but plenty about you.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:16 AM

I'm not in on this strange Wheatcroft argument, but it strikes me odd that someone like Keith, who stridently demands that we present evidence from "real historians' who sell their books in "real bookshops" should cite the opinion only of a journalist with no historical qualifications whatever on the work of one of Britain's recognised great historians whose historical importance has been compared to that of "Gibbon and MacCauley"
Funny what a little bit of jingoism does to some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:30 AM

Dave,
So telling someone that their morality is shit and that they have lied is not personal

I would only call someone a liar in connection with a specific lie that they have told, in this case your false claim that, "Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders."

To tell such a lie about me while criticising me for once using one word instead of two, with no deception, over 3 years ago and accusing me of having a "different morality" indicates a morality in yourself that I would describe as "shitty."
That is not personal abuse but a reasoned case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

Steve,
Keithie baby, if I said that IDF soldiers went into the camps to kill people, I would be obliged if you could provide the quote.

Certainly, but Teribus did just a few posts back,
"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

To say that someone is a liar and that their morality is shit is personal abuse by anyone's reckoning. To deny it is not just stupid but bending the definition beyond all reason.

Not that I really give a shit about your opinion of me but I will happily bring this back every time you say you never use personal abuse.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:39 AM

Ah Gnome - I tend to deal with people in the same coin they themselves use - as previously stated no moderator on this forum has ever censured me over any post I have written publicly or privately, the same cannot be said for you, the Musktwats or that lying git Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM

Steve again,
Their troops were in total control of the area and they stood aside to allow the Christian phalangists, their allies, to enter those camps to do the killing.

They had a legitimate reason for sending them into the camp, and no possible motive for wanting a massacre.
That is not a minority opinion except among despicable regimes with real blood on their hands."enter those camps to do the killing."

a history book written by a living historian in the last thirty years, preferably one on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. It will assuredly confirm what I've just said,

I have yet to find one that does, Please suggest one.

You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once. You want us to think that you're not thick and that you are the bearer of the sword of truth. But you read the Guardian the same as I did that day (unfortunately for you), and only a complete imbecile would have "innocently" made that mistake.

I quoted the Guardian accurately that day, but dropped one of the words used to dismiss the books some days later.
Sorry about that, but it did not alter the meaning.
Both books say the same thing and both were contemptuously dismissed by Wheatcroft.
Your seizing on one word instead of two was a desperate act of trivia because Wheatcroft supported my case not yours, leaving you with no genuine argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:50 AM

Jim,
if these signs are not common, prove it -

OK. None of us living here have ever seen one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:54 AM

Dave,
To say that someone is a liar and that their morality is shit is personal abuse by anyone's reckoning.

Not if you do it in relation to a specific and nasty lie of yours and in the context of your pursuing me for dropping one word three years ago.

I condemn such morality.
I do not call you random abusive names.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:55 AM

It's my party, not yours, so bugger off, Iains.

Shaw you are a tiresome fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:12 AM

Indy headline today,
"Labour members 'ripping up membership cards' in disgust at Ken Livingstone ruling, say furious MPs
Former London mayor had said he was expecting to be kicked out of party - but disciplinary panel instead re-instated him as a member"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:12 AM

Keith, no matter how you phrase it, calling someone a liar and immoral is personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' are. If you address the person instead of the issue it can be nothing but personal. If in addressing that person you suggest that their character is flawed, it is abuse. Whenever you say that you do not indulge in personal abuse I shall remind you of this.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

BTW - Ken Livingstone's excuse for what he said is that he was only stating the facts and what he said did happen so it cannot be antisemitic. Does that sound a familiar excuse to anyone? Does anyone here use it in reference to anti Muslim or anti Traveler rhetoric by any chance?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

"OK. None of us living here have ever seen one."
So what Keith plenty of others have
Mudcat is a very small puddle in this very big ocean of of ours and those who contributed to this discussion number no more than..... how many?
So less tan a dozen people have not seen them (actually - the toltal who actually sid that number less than six
The people who have seen them you dismissed as liars - a lose lose situation
Those who saw them are liars, those who didn't are proof that they don't exist
You are a bigoted racist and, like all racists, not very bright
Prove all those articles that say they are common are lies or you are lying
Simple as that
You have not had the honesty to even attempt to do that
And you dare to call others dishonest.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Wheatcroft"
Who the **** gives a toss about the opinions of an unqualified journalist
You busted a gut dismissing qualified historians because they were dead
Nutty or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 05:37 AM

Dave,
Keith, no matter how you phrase it, calling someone a liar and immoral is personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' are.

No matter how you deny it, calling someone a liar in response to them lying is not abuse, and neither is disparaging the morality of someone telling nasty lies about someone while criticising them for a trivial slip three years earlier.
You make yourself look ridiculous by claiming it is "personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' "
Of course it isn't!

Ken Livingstone's excuse for what he said is that he was only stating the facts and what he said did happen so it cannot be antisemitic.

I think he makes a fair point on that, but he also defended the admitted anti_Semitic comments of Naz Shah.

Jim, if they were "common throughout Britain" some of us Catters who live here would have seen one.
We have not.
Case proved.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:04 AM

I'm not bothered who posts what where, frankly, Teribus, but I know you're a man who likes evidence, and the overwhelming evidence from your postings is that you appear to have very little interest in the music that this site was established for. You come here to do battle below the line only. You've found a site where you can do that and to hell with what the site is supposed to be for. I don't mention this because I WANT you to post more above the line (more than just the one post in six months and very little before that!), but because I know you'd rather I didn't mention it. Compared with some of the invective you spout at anyone who doesn't agree with you, I'd say that was a very mild observation. You're getting very shouty and repetitive over the Wheatcroft saga (oops, there I go again - are you already doing pat-a-cake with Keithie again?), having completely missed the point I've patiently tried to make that your mate Keith set out to deceive, and you're now foaming at the mouth because you said I said the IDF went in when I said no such thing. I've explained precisely what my opinion is on that, it's based on the facts of the matter and your mate is busy revising the history. What more is there to be said, really?

Citing opinions, Jim? Is there such a word as mis-citing? 😂

I have a couple of music threads to visit now, so excuse me....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM

Shaw I really think you should try and tame your obsession with mudcat.
You are behaving as though you have some ownership rights. Do you get paid commission for exceeding 25 posts a day or do you have nothing better to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:53 AM

Perhaps Shaw you and your pals cannot come out with your cliché riddled ideological arguments above the line so you come out with none of the lies, misrepresentations and myths above the line.

I do read threads above the line and I do follow what is going on. It may come as a great surprise to you that while below the line there is probably nothing that Jim Carroll and I have in common - above the line however Jim and myself would generally on all topics appear to be in lock-step agreement on everything to do with what we see as being folk music.

Your take on the Wheatcroft thing is based on a lie, you contributed to the WWI was No Mans Land thread after Keith A had accurately quoted the passage from Wheatcroft's article and you did not comment or contest the point that Keith A was making - i.e. that the work of AJP Taylor and Alan Clark and the views they espoused had, in the light of subsequent information, been shown to be at worst, simply wrong, at least, ill-informed.

It was only after Keith made the passing reference to an accurately quoted passage on another thread that you decided to seize upon an error of omission that Keith A acknowledged and corrected immediately it was brought to his attention. Even then Shaw you refused point blank to discuss the content of Wheatcroft's article, instead you started a three year epic dancing on the head of a pin concerning Keith's error of omission and in that time NOT ONCE did you concede that he had acknowledged the error and corrected it, instead you embarked on a deliberate campaign of propagating the lie that he had done neither - that Shaw is utterly despicable, dishonest and cowardly at "Master-Class" level.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:57 AM

Steve,
the point I've patiently tried to make that your mate Keith set out to deceive

And failed Steve.
There was no deception and no need for it.
Everything he said supported my case.
Yours was the only deception trying to save face.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM

What time is The Archers on...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

"Do you get paid commission for exceeding 25 posts a day or do you have nothing better to do?"

Shhh! It's cash in hand only and I don't charge VAT. That's why I'm such an attractive proposition! Keep it yourself!

Have I told y'all yet about the glories of Vallage cheese? I have that with Bath Olivers and Morrisons Nero d'Avola for us tonight, together with my take on chunky guacamole with crudités (pretentious, moi?) and a stone-in nocellara olive or ten. Christ, I'm in a good mood. I feel one of those fun afternoons coming on.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:29 AM

Keep it TO yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:30 AM

Once the baseless accusations have been exposed and shown to be what they are you next resort to thread drift and deflection which finally lapses into inane waffle .......

Well done Shaw, proved my point beautifully.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:37 AM

I know NOthing. I come from Barcelona...

🎶Dum di dum di dum di dum, dum di dum di dum dum...🎶🎶

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:39 AM

After all the inane waffle in this thread, I get accused of inane waffle when I mention my beautiful cheese and guacamole. Hey, proper irony! Wibble!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:10 AM

"You are behaving as though you have some ownership rights"
And you, with your ill mannered hit-'n-run interbventions which bring nothing but inn brought up insults, are behaving like the troll that you are
You offer nothing else
Why are ignorant people like yourself invariably stupid?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:13 AM

The Shami Chakrabarti Legacy

Mr Watson [Deputy Leader of the Labour Party] said: "I find it incomprehensible that our elected lay members on the disciplinary panel found Ken Livingstone guilty of such serious charges, and then concluded that he can remain a member of the Labour Party.

"When I read the words of Chief Rabbi Mirvis, who says that 'the Labour Party has failed the Jewish community, it has failed its members and it has failed all those who believe in zero tolerance of anti-Semitism', I can't disagree with him. I wish I could, but I can't.

"I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress. It isn't just Jewish people who feel disgusted and offended by what Mr Livingstone said and by the way he has conducted himself over this matter, and it isn't just Jewish Labour members who feel ashamed of any indulgence of his views anywhere in the Labour Party. This shames us all, and I'm deeply saddened by it.

The problem that Shaw, Gnome, Carroll said did not exist - Quite naturally the more rational, logical and reasonable among us will accept that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party knows more about what is happening in the Party that he is Deputy Leader of than Shaw, Gnome and Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:43 AM

The problem that Shaw, Gnome, Carroll said did not exist

I have never said it does not exist and suggest, as your mate does, that if you want to make these accusations you back them up with evidence.

Over to you...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:10 AM

"Mr Watson"
Crooked politician forced to resign as cabinet minister for expenses fiddles who is a chairman of Friends of Israel" (do you mean?
Chief Rabbi Mirvis
"As Chief Rabbi of Ireland and before the opening of an Israeli Embassy in Ireland, he represented Israel's interests at government level and in the media. In 1999, he led a group of British rabbis on a solidarity trip to Israel. Since 1997, he has hosted the annual Bnei Akiva Yom Ha'atzmaut service at Finchley synagogue. Regarding the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, while deploring the loss of life in Gaza, Mirvis defended Israel's right to protect itself from Hamas rocket attacks, adding that the conflict was used as a cover to voice anti-Semitic sentiment."
The Israel - BDS connection that Terribus, Keith and Bobad said did not exist
The problesm still does not exist until someone disentangles these accusations from the Israeli BDS campaign and actually show us exactly what these charges consist of.
You crowd can drag in every quote in the world but until you put a face to these accusations they remain only accusations directly traceable back to the Israeli regime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:21 AM

Incidentally
I know very little of the Haavara Agreement that Livingston bases his opinions of, but there is oceans of evidence that the wartime Zionists did co-operate with the Nazis
Instaed of wildly throwing unqualified accusations about, why not debate what he actually said?
My respect and regard for the Jewish people does not include their political organisations any more than my respect for Christians does
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:39 AM

Who said it didn't exist? Not me! Yah boo sucks, baseless accusation!

🎶Rumpy pumpy pumpy pum, rumpy pumpy pum pum🎶🎶

--that's the Sunday morning omnibus version if you're still in bed...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:39 AM

The pack must be losing it again. They are resorting to the usual insults. Funny how anyone who has a different take on events is invariably called stupid. Obviously there is no substance to their accusations. They are rather sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

"Coooeeee! Bono!"

(That's Bono's mum trying to get him to come in for tea)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:44 AM

Livingstone would have us believe that these complaints are really a devious attempt to silence criticism of Israel. In reality, none of the comments outlined here have anything to do with normal political criticism of Israeli policies. Instead, they are part of an obsessive hatred of Israel, detached from reality and ever more inventive in its slanders, that both reflects and fuels contemporary anti-Semitism.

The British left is not anti-Semitic per se, but it is increasingly becoming a place where a certain type of anti-Semite feels more comfortable than an average British Jew.

None of this is new. CST and others have warned for years that anti-Semitic attitudes are allowed to pass unchecked and unchallenged in anti-Israel circles, and have become normalized and widespread as a result. This is the source of the Labour Party's anti-Semitism problem, which the party is failing to tackle effectively. It will continue to be a problem in the anti-Israel movement for as long as leaders and activists are willing to share platforms, hold conferences and organize petitions for people who express such appalling views.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.781684

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:45 AM

"Coo! Eeee, Bono!"

(Yorkshire lass admiring Bono's pecs)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:49 AM

Well, Ken wasn't expressing an appalling view. He was stating a fact! Got any more unbiased sources that you want to post then say absolutely nothing about? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:50 AM

Been overdosing on the supermarket vino again shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:52 AM

"Coo! e-Bono!"

(Expression of surprise upon finding Bono in cyberspace)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM

Bad form online to accuse anyone of being alcoholic. Or mentally ill. Baseless accusations. Bill'll explain that to you.


Hey, whaddam I like! I just invented a word with quadruple 'l' in it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 10:08 AM

They are resorting to the usual insults. Funny how anyone who has a different take on events is invariably called stupid. Obviously there is no substance to their accusations.

What insults are those Iains? Which accusations in particular have no substance? The one where I was accused of denying that there was any antisemitism in the Labour party maybe? Maybe the combined insult and accusation that I am immoral? We need to know these things!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 10:47 AM

Shaw: Well, Ken wasn't expressing an appalling view. He was stating a fact!

Here are the "facts" Livingstone was stating in the linked piece. I don't know anyone who would deny that they are anti-Semitic (well, not anyone I would want to associate with anyway)

It wasn't enough that Livingstone, a year ago, had claimed that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" in the 1930s. He dug this hole deeper than anyone thought possible by claiming, on the threshold of his own disciplinary hearing, that in the 1930s "The SS set up training camps" to prepare German Jews for life in Palestine and Nazi Germany sold weapons "to the underground Jewish army" as part of "real collaboration" that continued up to the start of World War Two.

Needless to say, neither of these particular claims are true, and his other examples of supposed collaboration between the Nazi authorities and the Zionist movement are either completely baseless or such distortions of history as to be fundamentally misleading. But that's not the point.

Livingstone's claims go well beyond the lazy moral equations of Israel with Nazi Germany that have become ubiquitous in anti-Israel circles. They even exceed the claims of ideological kinship between Zionism and Nazism that Trotskyists like Lenni Brenner (who Livingstone cites as a key influence) have worked up for decades.

Livingstone's latest claims have more in common with Holocaust denial than with Holocaust equivalency, because to believe that on the eve of the Holocaust, the SS – the most anti-Semitic organization in modern history, dedicated to the mass murder of Jews and to the extermination of the Jewish people – provided weapons and training to the Zionist movement requires a complete suspension of reality. It is false history for a political purpose.

By this way of thinking, either the SS was not as anti-Semitic as we think; or the Jewish national movement was so morally depraved and wicked that it would connive in the destruction of its own people. Given that Livingstone has called the Holocaust "the greatest racist crime of the 20th century," it is presumably the latter conclusion that he wants people to draw.

That Livingstone can repeatedly say these things and remain in the Labour Party makes it impossible to still see it as a party that consistently opposes anti-Semitism in all its forms, as Jeremy Corbyn insists. The two are not compatible.

There is not a single serious historian of the Holocaust or of Nazi Germany who agrees with Livingstone's interpretation of history, but his comments have been applauded by Nick Griffin, former leader of the British National Party, and by Gilad Atzmon, who calls himself a "proud self-hating Jew" and is generally shunned by many pro-Palestinian activists because of his record of anti-Semitic statements. It may not be a coincidence that both Griffin and Atzmon have indulged in Holocaust denial in their own past.

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

"I don't know anyone who would deny that they are anti-Semitic "
Yours and Israel's overuse of the term has made it completely meaningless
Livingstone was quoting something that is stated by whole sections of Jews, including orthodox ones like 'The True Torah
' which has been virtually censcored out of existence by Wiki
I haven' read '51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.', but I know the author not to be an antisemite and afre seeing to and people like yo perform, I will make a point of doing so - argument by name-calling always makes me supicios that people have something to hide
"Been overdosing on the supermarket vino again shaw?"
As does trolls emerging from under their bridge, then sprinting away
You are an arrogant and cowardly twat - write it down and remember it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM

Yours and Israel's overuse of the term has made it completely meaningless

Never overused - always used in compliance with the commonly accepted definition.

If it's overused to you maybe you should reconsider your anti-Semitic comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

"Commonly-accepted?" Weeeeee-zel words! Not anyone you'd want to associate with? Well stop associating with me then!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 12:40 PM

Not anyone you'd want to associate with? Well stop associating with me then!

I take it that means you don't consider his comments to be anti-Semitic. If so you are in good company with the likes of Nick Griffin and Gilad Atzmon.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 12:45 PM

From what I understand Keith does not consider it antisemitic to state facts either. Bit of a poser that one init poos?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 12:59 PM

"Never overused"
Yeas it is Bobad, especially by you
You call me a "Jew hater" yet you have never been able to produce on attack I have made on the Jewish people, despite the offer of a money donation to a charity of choice - not once.
Your friend Keith claims that Jews in Parliament refuse to describe Labour's antisemitism because of their love of the party - an antisemitic 'Jewish pact of silence' - you refuse even to comment, which makes you a hypocrite.
Israeli public figures, including the justice minister, have stated publicly that to criticise Israel is antisemitic - they associate Israeli war crimes with being Jewish - that is antisemitic by definition and, in my opinion, is the only possible explanation of the rise in antisemitism in the world today - if Israel ban describe its actions in Gaza as "Jewish" why can't anybody.
You don't respond to my comments on Livingstone and I doubt if you will, which makes me suspect that 'Fifty One Documents' has something substantial to say
You are a liar, and a coward Bobad - you don't have the balls to stand beside what you say
Your use of sites like 'White Supremist' and 'Muslim Watch' and your disparagging both Muslims and Irish (you called them antisemitic and refused to provide proof and refuse) makes me believe your views are not unlike those that sent six million Jews to their deaths
All in all, you are a ******* disgrace
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:07 PM

"Commonly-accepted"......Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:50 PM

You really are going to maintain your spinelessness by not responding to my offer or refusing to criticise Keith's antisemitism - a hypocrite a coward and a liar
Sounds like something out of The Wizard of Oz
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:03 PM

In the eyes of your government and its police force this post of yours is anti-Semitic. It marks you as an anti-Semite. You don't get to invent your own definitions and laws - that's not the way things work in society. Make your donation now and I expect to see a copy of the receipt.


User Name         Thread Name         Subject         Posted
[PM] Jim Carroll         BS: Palestine (657* d)         RE: BS: Palestine         23 Oct 11

I have claimed that there are comparisons ("echoes" is the word I used) to be drawn between the behaviour of the Nazis towards the Jews, and that of the Israelis towards the Palestinians

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:09 PM

Well I'm in good company with Churchill too in that he wanted to defeat the Nazis but I still hated the bastard.

"Commonly-accepted." Have you done a survey then? Got numbers for us? Or are we only counting those decent democracies of Keith's? Like the UK for example, that decent democracy that sells arms to and trains the Saudi forces so that they can cause thousands of children to starve in Yemen? Got a list of the decent democracies who have adopted your "definition" who do deals with a country that publicly beheads 300 people a year? These things get a bit blurry when you dig, don't they? So who's "commonly accepted" it then?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:29 PM

Dave, you did not deny that Labour anti-Semitism exists, but you claimed it was no worse a problem than for other parties.
It clearly is.

Jim,
The Israel - BDS connection that Terribus, Keith and Bobad said did not exist

It does not, which is why you have no evidence for your ludicrous claim.

Dave again,

From what I understand Keith does not consider it antisemitic to state facts either. Bit of a poser that one init poos?

There is nothing wrong with stating facts, but KL tried to use those facts as a defence for Naz Shah's anti-Semitic comments. That is the issue.

Jim again,

Crooked politician forced to resign as cabinet minister for expenses fiddles who is a chairman of Friends of Israel" (do you mean?

Yes, the one elected to his post by the membership.
One of many (most?) politicians who fiddled expenses at that time.
What is your problem with Labour Friends of Israel?

Steve,

Well, Ken wasn't expressing an appalling view. He was stating a fact!
That would be OK but he tried to use those facts to defend Naz Shah's anti-Semitic statements.

Jim,
Yours and Israel's overuse of the term has made it completely meaningless

Not true. It is now defined in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:58 PM

Facts and figures for it being worse in the Labour party than anywhere else please Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:13 PM

"Yes, the one elected to his post by the membership.
One of many (most?) politicians who fiddled expenses at that time.
What is your problem with Labour Friends of Israel?"
Doesn't alter the fact that he is a crook and he works for Israel
What's your point?
"It does not, which is why you have no evidence for your ludicrous claim."
These people operate in secret but is chairman of Friends of Israel, has announced his opposition to BDS and each time accusations of antisemitism have been he Watson coincided with him returning from Israel in that capacity
You have been given the dates.
Too much of a coincidence for all but those it doesn't suit
"It does not, which is why you have no evidence for your ludicrous claim."
Yes it does - prove the coincidences are coincidences

Tom Watson sings 'Am Yisrael Chai'
Watson begins singing to his audience while delivering a speech to Labour Friends of Israel in which he repudiates anti-Semitism, attacks moral bankruptcy of BDS Movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

DOESN@T COME CLEARER THAN THIS
"Not true. It is now defined in law."
And Israel and Bobad choose to ignore that Law by describing criticism of Isreal Antisemitic - so have you
You can't have a valid law if the signatories choose to ignore it
"n the eyes of your government and its police force this post of yours is anti-Semitic. "
I am no longer living in Brtain and am not subject to their laws while I live elsewhere
As I said
"You can't have a valid law if the signatories choose to ignore it"
Ad I repeat "I have never at any time in my life attacked the Jewish People
Your filty and cowardly lie says I have - yo are a cowarddly and dishonest scumbag
And still you accept Keith's antisemitsm - my ideal Jewish hero is Dov Landau, who is yours - Adolpf Eichmann
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:35 PM

There is no such thing as Labour antisemitism. There are no brands of antisemitism. There is antisemitism, which means hating Jews because they are Jews. I'm glad you accept that Ken was dealing in facts. Here's another fact for you. Naz Shah didn't say anything antisemitic. What a shame she saw the need to save her skin by admitting to something she didn't do. Isn't it amazing that you cling on to one statement from a woman you revile as if she's somehow saintly just for saying that one thing. Forget the NEC. Forget the Labour hierarchy. I'm a Labour Party member and I'm the first to admit that the NEC and hierarchy are dysfunctional. Just think for yourself and examine what she actually said. You never do that, Keith, and you're not going to do it now. You're going to tell me that you're right because of what someone else thinks, never what Keith thinks. You're hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 05:15 PM

There is antisemitism, which means hating Jews because they are Jews.


As adopted by 31 of the world's countries including the Government of the UK, the UK police forces and the UK Labour Party:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing
Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 05:48 PM

So "commonly accepted" means accepted by 31 countries out of nearly 200. Can you improve on that number? 😂 Thing is, you keep on chuntering out this "definition." It's getting a bit boring and it's very forced. Whats wrong with saying that antisemitism is hating Jews because they're Jews? Clear, simple, unarguable, nothing to do with states or regimes. Can you argue with that? Give it a whirl!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:47 PM

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
That's what I said Bobad - every time to screech "Jew hater" or "antisemite" whenever somebody criticises Israel, that's what you are.
As Israel has now made this a permanent response to their war crimes - they are an antisemitic state
I don't for one minute believe you will respond to this, but that's what you do and it's what defines what you are.
Think on't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:00 PM

Christ, Jim. You are asking a man to think who has never shown the slightest evidence that he is equipped to do such a thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 10:37 PM

Better than asking a liar Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:32 AM

"Better than asking a liar Shaw."
Why don't you start behaving like an adult Teribus?
Your strutting used to at least provide some entertainment - now you have joined the happy band of trolls who just insult
Is being asked to justify your arguments really that difficult?
How the mindless have fallen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:50 AM

Dave,
Facts and figures for it being worse in the Labour party than anywhere else please Keith.

Ha ha ha ha!
You don't follow the news much Dave.
No other party has been riven by complaints from within about intolerance of women, gays and Jews.
The Indy has not run headlines about members of other parties tearing up their membership cards.
No other party has had to suspend dozens for alleged anti-Semitism.
Those dozens and everything else are your "facts and figures" Dave.

Steve,
Naz Shah didn't say anything antisemitic.

According to your view of anti-Semitism maybe.
You have proved yourself incapable of recognising the real thing.
The Labour NEC recognised it for what it was, and Shah herself admitted it was anti-Semitic and that it stemmed from her ignorance of history.
Perhaps ignorance is your problem too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:54 AM

Steve,
So "commonly accepted" means accepted by 31 countries out of nearly 200.

Yes, it is just the decent and tolerant democracies.
The rest of the 200 are the nastiest regimes on Earth. Your friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:03 AM

Huff Post article yesterday by Yvette Cooper , Labour MP for Normanton, Castleford and Pontefract, and chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee
Headline,
"Saying Anti-Semitism Has No Place In Labour Is Not Enough - We Have To Stand Up And Make It True"

Opening para.,
"Last night's decision by Labour's NCC disciplinary panel was utterly wrong. It isn't enough for the Labour Party to say the words "zero tolerance of anti-Semitism" we have to put them into practice. Yesterday the party's institutions failed to do so. For a party with such a long, proud history of fighting against racism, for equality and for what is right - this is a dark moment. But it is a moment we must not let just pass."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette-cooper/ken-livingstone_b_15827362.html

"Facts and figures" Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:35 AM

Yvette Cooper
"She served in the Cabinet between 2008 and 2010 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions."
After Labour left government in May 2010, Cooper and her husband Ed Balls were both mentioned in the press as a potential leadership candidates when Gordon Brown resigned as Leader of the Labour Party.
Before Balls announced his candidacy, he offered to stand aside if Cooper wanted to stand, but Cooper declined for the sake of their children, stating that it would not be the right time for her
In 2015, she was nominated as one of four candidates for Labour leader following the party's defeat in the 2015 general election and the resignation of Ed Miliband
Cooper came in third place,"
There you have it Keith - a wannabe but faieled Labour leader and opponent to Corbyn.
Very much a part of the Old Guard and an opponent of change
Unproven and undefined antisemitism is as good a ladder to the top of the heap as anything else
Let's see if she breaks the silence and actually discusses the antisemitism instead of using it as a way to the stars
More shite about decent democracies that sell arms to despots I see
Mindless crap Keith
If they didn't things that Israel weren't true they would be outraged at such an appalling accusation throughout the world and stand up for them - or are they too "decent" to stand up for a nation that is being vilified unfairly?
Your stonewalling is showing again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:49 AM

Those dozens and everything else are your "facts and figures" Dave.

So, no facts and figures at all then, Keith, just newspaper articles showing that Labour are still the "party with such a long, proud history of fighting against racism, for equality and for what is right". I linked a survey about antisemitism once that showed the highest figures were amongst UKIP members but you dismissed that even though it was based on actual figures rather than assumptions. Can you link me with anything to show the percentage of antisemites by political party? No? Thought not. Until you can prove that Labour suffers from antisemitism more than anyone else and is in fact the only party that has the guts to do anything about it you will excuse me if I totally ignore you.

Now, off to walk up to the towers with my youngest grandson shortly. The sun is shining but there is a bit of morning chill in the air. Perfect day for it. I shall report back later.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:20 AM

Yvette Cooper, as well as being one of the right-wing Labour cabal who managed to hand power to Cameron twice and which is dedicated to undermining Jeremy Corbyn at every opportunity, is a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel. I note that neither she nor the Labour Party have dared to utter the words "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite." Nor dare they say that "Hitler supported Zionism" is an antisemitic remark. Why won't they say these things? Because Ken is as un-antisemitic as it's possible to be, that's why. He visited Israel and forged links with left-wing groups there. As mayor of London he regularly met with the city's Jewish groups and he introduced public Hanukkah celebrations in Trafalgar Square in 2005. He gave unstinting support to minority ethnic groups and campaigned for racial equality and equal rights for LGBT Londoners. He did this in the teeth of often racist or homophobic derision from the Tories and the media, branded "loony left," remember? He did as much as anyone to change attitudes to minorities. You don't do all that if you're antisemitic. On two or three occasions he's made undiplomatic remarks that have got him into trouble, but then he has had a hawkish right-wing media on his back for decades. Not a single antisemitism accusation against him has stuck. You are a hypocrite for singling out a man who has done a damn sight more to help ethnic minorities in this country, including Jews, than anyone in the shoddy party that that you support. I include Blairites in that as well. Why not. They're just as bad.

Now use your brain for once and tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic, i.e., attacking Jews because they are Jews. Let's see if you can manage, for once, to answer without telling me what someone else thinks. I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

Don't ask Keith for facts and figures, Dave. After all, he's proved to us what a bunch of slave-driving bastards travellers are in general by highlighting almost three court cases against them in about four years! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:35 AM

Steve: "So 'commonly accepted' means accepted by 31 countries out of nearly 200."

Keith: "Yes, it is just the decent and tolerant democracies.
The rest of the 200 are the nastiest regimes on Earth. Your friends."

So in order to become a decent democracy all you have to do is sign up to Keith's antisemitism definition. Don't worry about fixing corruption, rigging elections or repressing your own minorities. Sign on this line and you'll become decent! Do you realise how idiotic your comment looks, Keith?

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

"Labour are still the "party with such a long, proud history of fighting against racism, for equality and for what is right".

What a ridiculous statement!......Where have you been for the last forty years? Voting for Blair and lapping up the kudos of victory in three elections no doubt.

All that Labour ever stood for is long gone, look at the rump of the Parliamentary Party, most of them pro EU with their snouts just itching for the money trough. The most corrupt and undemocratic shower we will ever see, "liberals" to a man (and woman), they disgust me.

Corbyn doesn't yet have a party to lead, he is leader in name only of a gang of self serving dissidents ready to knife him at the first opportunity......Mr Corbyn has a very weak movement of socialists which will never gain electoral power in the near future...I don't think Mr Corby will live to see a real socialist government, but it will come by necessity some day....It wont be pretty or much fun, but by that time it will be a matter of survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:00 AM

"Voting for Blair"
Voting for scumbags like Blair had s.f.a. to do with racism, opposition to which has remained unchanged since Labour was founded by the Trades Unions and immigrants like the Jews fleeing pogroms
The nearest not New Labour have given to any form of racism is to adopt an opportunist approach to winning votes by compromising on immigration, but somebody with your outlook, who thinks it is acceptable to force immigrants to wear yellow stars and who believes mass murderer had something to sat worth listening to can't possibly have a problem with that
Your comments on soacism are crap as you as far away from a real socialist as it would be possible to imagine - personally, I hope to the gog I don't believe in that I don't live to see your brand of National Socialisam come to fruition again - I was born when it was at it's most vicious, I hope I don't go out to see it jackbooting its way through Eurpe again.
Corbyn is the one shining light in a party that has been taken over by right wing predators and career politicians seeking a tenure for life.   
If he fails, let's hope that genuine socialists have the nouse to take Ireland's example and build a few alternatives cable of challenging the status quo (though that took the self-destruction of the Irish Labour Party to make that a possibility)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

Dave,
So, no facts and figures at all then, Keith,

Plenty of facts Dave.
The FACT that the Labour Party alone is riven with complaints about the attitude to women, gays and Jews.
The FIGURES are the dozens of members facing disciplinary action for anti-Semitism.
No other Party has anything like that Dave dear, or has there been something that everyone has missed? Do tell us about it.

Thought not. Until you can prove that Labour suffers from antisemitism more than anyone else

Proved beyond question Dave.

in fact the only party that has the guts to do anything about it

Ha ha ha !!
The other parties have nothing to do anything about!
No complaints of any kind of racism or intolerance to deal with.
Labour has had nothing but such complaints for months now.
Facts and figures for you Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:36 AM

Steve,
So in order to become a decent democracy all you have to do is sign up to Keith's antisemitism definition.

You have it about face Steve.
Decent, liberal democracies embrace the definition.
Nasty, intolerant, abusive regimes do not.

he's proved to us what a bunch of slave-driving bastards travellers are in general

How could I prove something which I have stated is untrue.
You resort to lying about me again because you are losing so badly.
I merely pointed out a massive over-representation in recent convictions.

And, when I quote one of the many Labour dissidents, what is the point of you people pointing out that they are Labour dissidents!???
Ha ha ha ha.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 08:27 AM

"Decent, liberal democracies embrace the definition."
But Israel has rejected it
" it is antisemitic to implicate the Jewish people in the actions of teh State of Israel"
To Israel - all who critisise its policies are antisemitic
Can't pick and mix a definition - it has to be all or nothing
"No complaints of any kind of racism or intolerance to deal with."
The Tories were accused of serious Islamophobia a year ago - they appointed a racist as foreign secretary
I suppose that's doing something about it - helping it be more effective
Your facts and figures are forely missing something - the facts
You invented "over-representation" and have never produced a single individual to back up your claim - not even phantom ones.
You are very much a part of racism in Britain - a fanatical one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:03 AM

That's it, Keith. You are truly a fanatic. You think that the Tories and UKIP harbour not a trace of antisemitism. What planet are you on? You've rewritten the Middle East history of the early 1980s. You've scurrilously, without evidence, smeared the whole of the travelling community. Now you're lying about the Labour Party again. Give me a list of all those Labour members who have been FOUND GUILTY OF ANY UNEQUIVOCAL CHARGE OF ANTISEMITISM. Won't take long, will it, Keith? And you have not answered my questions. What part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic? Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?" You are a smear specialist, aren't you? You smeared the British Pakistani community, you smeared the traveller community, you smeared the Labour Party. You dedicate yourself to smearing anyone who doesn't fit your cosy Tory middle-England Christian warm beer down the pavilion mindset and you don't care whether you have evidence or not. You are an exceptionally nasty piece of work, aren't you, Keith?

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

Back in the UK for a month, before toddling back to Erin. Thankfully we travelled overnight as there were over 100 miles between Holyhead and home, parts of the M62 were down to one lane !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 09:52 AM

"Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?"

They have: Jo Coburn asked Labour MP "Is Ken Livingstone anti-semitic?"

Hitler wasn't a zionist; he colluded with Zionists because it suited him as part of his aim to get as many Jews out of Germany as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 10:16 AM

Tell you what I'm going to do Keith
You obviously have no intention of desisting with your vicious racist attacks on the Travelling Community, by far the most vulnerable in Britain, on the verge of being ethnically cleansed out of existence – so I think it's time to put your "massive over-representation" invention to the test.
Over the last few decades, the Christian Church, in Ireland in Britain and as far afield as Canada and America, has been blown apart though disclosures of clerical sexual abuse that have gone back certainly throughout the twentieth century and even beyond – the first case of Clerical sexual abuse was recorded as far back as The Book of Kells.
Not only have clerics made sexual use of children that fell within their reach, but their church hierarchy have colluded in that abuse by covering it up and by the offenders being passed on to parishes where their "little weaknesses" are not known.
Up to the present day the Vatican has refused to reveal details of those abuses and allowed the victims to achieve some sort of justice, or at least, peace of mind.
These abuses have been centred on the Catholic Church, but it is obvious that they include other Christian churches, your own included.
You refuse to comment on the two Salvation Army Christians who imprisoned a young woman for eight years, during which time they raped and sexually abused her, beat her, starved her and kept her in conditions in which it would be illegal to keep an animal.
It seems to me that, if the actions of a small handful of criminals, who happen to be Travellers, represent a "massive over-representation" by the Travelling community, using your own 'logic' that has to be the case with the Christian church and its many hundred of clerical abuses.
Not only that, taking another of your inventions, as the abuses spread to all levels of the Church, it seems possible that the Christian Church is "culturally implanted" to rape children – if that can be applied to Muslims, why not Christians?
While I have serious doubts about your claim, you say you are a Christian, so you should be able to give us an insider's view
I have no desire to upset or insult people on this forum whose beliefs I respect, ut I really do think too and Teribus have been given your head (whoops – not a tactful term as far as clerical abuse goes!!) for long enough.
I worked with Travellers for thirty years and I found them warm, generous and welcoming; I was also able to see what damage racism like yours and Teribus's did to them and their families.
One more mention of "massive" or even "small over-representation" and I will start a thread of my own to see how your theory holds up when applied to other cultures and races.
When that runs its course, I may even start one to see if the third of British people questioned who admitted holding and expressing racists views represents yet another "nmassive over-representation" or "cultural implant"
Waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 10:45 AM

I am behaving very much as an adult Jim. If I am wrong about anything and it is pointed out to me I am adult enough to acknowledge my mistake and correct my error. Keith A of Hertford has demonstrated exactly the same degree of honesty, integrity and maturity. YOU and your pal Shaw on the other hand have not.

Now back to Naz Shah who said nothing anti-Semitic according to Shaw, despite the lady herself admitting what she had tweeted WAS anti-semitic. So I suppose this rests on the "Shaw definition" and that Naz Shah only wanted the "Israeli regime" to be lifted and shifted to the mid-west of the USA, or did she state her support for the idea that the entire State of Israel be moved to the USA? As this was demonstrated by the borders of 1923 Palestine being superimposed on a map of the USA it would appear to be the latter. In which case Naz shah in that tweet is stating quite clearly that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination, that the State of Israel is illegal and that the Jewish people have no right to a self-governing country - Which is about as anti-Semitic as you can get.

Now onto Ken Livingstone - Hitler made a deal with the Zionists? Really? Pity no details of this deal have been put in evidence, or was this deal only struck with A. Hitler and nobody else apart from KL knew about it? The SS were supposed to have armed and trained German Jews to prepare them to fight in Palestine? What at the same time as they were burning Synagogues and Jewish businesses and homes in Germany? At the same time as even the SS were solely reliant on the German army for weapons and training? For fucks sake read the very well documented history of the period - the whole bloody thing is a ludicrous fantasy. Nor surprised at all that Shaw and Carroll swallowed it.

As far as definitions go:

What is Antisemitism?

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a "working definition of antisemitism" which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism's longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition.

Hey guys, guess what? Inveterate liar and hypocrite Steve Shaw KNOWS BETTER cos "teacher's never wrong" - don't know who thinks he's kidding but he doesn't impress me one f**kin' iota.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

- Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour).

- Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:06 AM

The Stench of the Anti-Semitic Old Right That Hangs Around Ken Livingstone
Haaretz

Yet Livingstone's public pronouncements have spoken of 'collaboration' and 'collaborators' – a term which conjures up Vichy France and Vidkun Quisling in the minds of many. The insinuation is that the Zionists of the time willingly and deliberately worked with the Nazis, not to rescue Jews, but because they quietly approved of Hitler's revolution in German society.

Why, the sentient observer might ask, would he make this incendiary claim? For that, it is important to dissect the narrative and imagery of the mindset of many on the far Left – a mindset related to the notion that current-day Israelis are Nazis, Gaza is the Warsaw Ghetto and besieged Palestinians are the 'real Jews'.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:38 AM

"The Stench of the Anti-Semitic Old Right That Hangs Around Ken Livingstone"
Opinions written by Colin Schindler, who actively opposes B.D.S. and regards opposition to Israel as "antisemitic" - he includes protests in support of the Palestinian people as such, even by Palestinians themselves.
He lectures on occasion in Tel Aviv and has been criticised by his students as doing so
What else if his opinion goint to be.
"Hitler made a deal with the Zionists? Really? Pity no details of this deal have been put in evidence, or was this deal only struck with A. Hitler "
You are (deliberately?) not reading what is being put up again Teribus.
"'Fifty One Documents - Zionist collaboration with the Nazis'" is there for the perusing, and if you ever stop behaving like a schoolyard bully - Ken Livingstone - right or wrong, did not snatch his opinion out of the air, as you dishonestly suggest, Jews like those who make uo 'The True Torah' have been making the same accusation since the war.
Your blustering bullshit really does expose a distinct self doubt in what you have to say
"working definition of antisemitism"
As often as those defending Israel put this definition up, they need to respond to the fact that Israel, and anybody who defends her behaviour with accusations of "antisemitism" is being as "antisemitic and Jew-Hating" as anybody by ignoring one of it's most fundamental inclusions "HOLDING JEWS COLLECTIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 11:39 AM

But according to Keith's reasoning, Teribus, Livingstone has not said anything antisemitic. All he has done is repeated facts. That seems to be the excuse used most often by Keith. Travelers are over represented in cases on slavery. Not anti traveler. Pakistanis are over represented in grooming cases. Not anti Pakistani. The Nazi party, of which Hitler was the head in case you had forgotten, collaborated with Zionists. Not anti Semitic.

Keith, nothing you have listed indicates that the Labour party is any worse than anyone else. Just better at accepting responsibility.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:14 PM

"I haven' read '51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.', but I know the author not to be an antisemite and afre seeing to and people like yo perform, I will make a point of doing so - argument by name-calling always makes me supicios that people have something to hide" - Jim Carroll

I certainly hope that by now you have read all 404 pages of it Jim. I'd suggest that your pals Gnome and Shaw do as well - because it doesn't say what you think it does, it most certainly does not say what Ken Livingstone says, or thinks, it does.

There was no Nazi collaboration with the World Zionist Order, or indeed with German Zionist organisations, although the latter did try to negotiate with the German Nazi Authorities but were led by the nose and ripped off at every single opportunity. What they were attempting to do was save lives and they did save a few thousand. By the way there was no arrangement whereby the SS trained and armed Zionists prior to allowing them to emigrate to Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:28 PM

Jim,
To Israel - all who critisise its policies are anti-Semitic

Not true. Just your made up shit Jim. It has an opposition and a free media that criticise its policies every day.

Steve,
You think that the Tories and UKIP harbour not a trace of antisemitism.

I am sure that they do, but their Jewish members have experienced nothing to complain about, while Labour's Jews are furious about how they are treated.

Jim,
your vicious racist attacks on the Travelling Community,

Quote one Jim. You are just lying about me again.
"No Traveller signs" are not common throughout Britain. Fact.
Travellers are over-represented in recent convictions for slavery. Fact.
That is all I have ever said about them.
If you are not lying, quote me.

Dave,
Keith, nothing you have listed indicates that the Labour party is any worse than anyone else. Just better at accepting responsibility.

Not true. They are very bad at accepting responsibility, and the other parties have had no complaints to accept responsibility for!
If that is not true, list all the complaints of anti-Semitism that have emerged from any other party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

Steve,
Why has no-one in the Labour Party said "Ken Livingstone is an antisemite?"

Er, their disciplinary committee found him guilty of it Steve.

100 British Labour MPs have denounced their own party for failing to significantly discipline a prominent anti-Semitic member.

Is this happening in any other party, or is it just a problem for Labour?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM

Reuters, 10 hours ago,

"Britain's opposition Labour Party suspended former London Mayor Ken Livingstone for saying Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism, but was accused of being too soft on the veteran politician.
The row comes against a backdrop of criticism within Labour and in the Jewish community, rejected by party leaders, that Labour has had a persistent problem with anti-Semitism under hard-left leader Jeremy Corbyn.
"Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community," Corbyn said in a statement on Wednesday.
Under pressure from Jewish community leaders and Labour members of parliament who argued Livingstone should have been permanently expelled rather than just suspended for two years, Corbyn hinted that further action could be taken."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-politics-labour-antisemitism-idUSKBN1770QY

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:18 PM

Zionist and Jew are not the same thing. The Catholic Church collaborated with Mussolini. By saying that, I'm not condemning the whole of Christianity. Catholic and Christian are not the same thing. Not only that, not all Catholics agreed with that collaboration. So Zionist and Jew are not the same thing. If I say I dislike Zionism, in no way am I saying that I dislike Jews. And I dislike people who are telling me what I'm saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm saying. There is nothing, NOTHING antisemitic about saying that Hitler supported Zionism. We can argue the fat over whether that's true until the cows come home. But there is no argument about the fact that it is not an antisemitic remark. If you disagree, let's be having your precise reason why. Your reason, not according to a "definition." Tell me why you think that saying Hitler supported Zionism is an attack on all Jews. Had I been around when Zionists were fighting for a Jewish state I would have been opposed on political grounds, not because I hate Jews. That's the way the world works and no religion has the right to trump political discourse. But I do not oppose the existence of Israel now. Israel is a fact and that is also the way the world works. In fact, I support the state of Israel in that I want it to become a real, progressive democracy. So far, I think it falls short of that. That does not mean I'm antisemitic any more than it means I'm anti-America because it has a rotten regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:20 PM

Because I THINK it has a rotten regime. I was in a hurry to go and mash the spuds.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 02:50 PM

Think you've mashed the Hertford spuds many times over, Steve - but it doesn't seem to make any lasting impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:27 PM

The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:
Interestingly, while she supported Israel vehemently in Parliament, she was criticised by them for not supporting them enough because of wishing to advance her career
So - two agendas, an Israeli poodle and a political careerist.
Berger was the Director of Labour Friends of Israel for three years, but stepped down before the 2010 general election to stand in Liverpool. She was a committee member of the London Jewish Forum, an organisation dedicated to the promotion of Jewish life in London, but stepped down when she was elected to Parliament in 2010.
Second parliamentary term (2015–present)
In May 2015, the UK Independence Party suspended Jack Sen, a candidate who wrote to Berger on Twitter that she would rather have part of the budget sent to Poland/Israel than have it spent on child benefits.
"Not true. Just your made up shit Jim. It has an opposition and a free media that criticise its policies every day."
Says so in the definition - anybody linking Isreali actions with The Jewish people are antisemites


"Unless you can come up with some others there is clearly a massive over-representation of Travellers convicted of slavery, as I said."
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation."

"Quote one Jim. You are just lying about me again."
"For a tiny ethnic group that is unequivocally a massive over-representation."
"Yes, but they can only be interpreted as an over-representation.
There may be many possible explanations, but it is a massive over-representation and that is all I ever claimed."
"merely pointed out a massive over-representation in recent convictions."
"Yes. Reports of Traveller related slavery cases. I can only think of one non-Traveller related case. How many can you think of?
Otherwise it is a massive over-representation."
THere you go Keith
Continue with your hate campaign - I would love a debate with you on a "massive over-representation of clerical child rape
You are a piece of racist scum - Muslims - brainwashed Irish children, now travellers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 03:49 PM

The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:

No it wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 04:00 PM

There was no Nazi collaboration with the World Zionist Order, or indeed with German Zionist organisations, although the latter did try to negotiate with the German Nazi Authorities but were led by the nose and ripped off at every single opportunity

Just how stupid a statement is that? If there was no collaboration how could they have been 'led by the nose'. To have been in that position there must have been some collaboration in the first place. Unless of course we are talking Hertford English rather than standard English.

list all the complaints of anti-Semitism that have emerged from any other party.

An even more stupid statement. Can you list the complaints of antisemitism against the Nazi party in the 1930's? I guess there were not many so, by your measure I suppose the Nazi party were not antisemitic!

Different Morality
Different Language
Different Planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 05:06 PM

"The writer of the piece you link to was written by Estell Berger:
No it wasn't."
Beg pardon Bobad - my mistake
The author of the article is based on quotes from Lucianda Berger - my description above is of that good lady, not the author
Same thing applies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:12 PM

Ah Gnome - you obviously haven't read Jim's link either - suggest that you do, along with some history of Germany 1933 to 1939 - then and only then will you have some feel for the situation.

You will find that:

- German Jews considered themselves to be Germans first and foremost and loyal Germans at that.

- Zionists inside Germany represented a tiny minority of Germany's Jewish population.

- The World Zionist Organisation was extremely vocal in their opposition of Nazi erosion of the rights of German Jews.

- Zionist organisations inside Germany found themselves as the only "organised Jews" in a country where their predicament could only be described as having one foot in the grave and the other on a banana skin. They theorised and cobbled together proposal after proposal to offer the Nazis that would allow Germany's Jews to leave - all were discussed, but the Nazis never had any intention whatsoever of entering into any real negotiations, they just kept offering that glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel - it served to keep the Jews quiet - the Nazis wanted their wealth and their businesses.

- There was no collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionist organisations inside Germany, as stated above it was the latter who tried desperately to enter into negotiations with the Nazis to save Jewish lives that traffic was strictly one way.


National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:26 PM

"National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from."

Well, the extreme distemper of this stupid remark, not to speak of the sheer illiteracy of the sentence, makes me conclude that you've been on the booze and that it's way past your bedtime. I don't normally resort to that, but, on the other hand, I don't like my good self or the perfectly decent blokes who you also mention being equated with Nazis. You are totally out of order, completely intemperate and completely disgraceful. Why don't you toddle off and post something in the music section? That would be a rarity but it might just sweeten you a bit. Or you could just wait until you've slept off whatever is addling your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:33 PM

By the way, Billyboy, thanks for this:

"Zionists inside Germany represented a tiny minority of Germany's Jewish population."

Excellent! So criticising Zionists for collaborating with Hitler can't POSSIBLY be antisemitic then. Antisemitic means that you hate all Jews. You can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticise only a selected tiny minority of Jews, such as those Zionists in Germany. So I ask again: why has no-one said that Ken is an antisemite?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 17 - 07:51 PM

"National Socialists were dissembling lying bastards wondered where you, Shaw and Carroll got it from."
You have yet to produce one lie I have told and your politics are far nearer National Socialism as anybody on this form than any other on this form - you racism runs neck and neck with theirs - your being forced out of your closet s probably the reason you have gone viral on your insulting everybody again.
I don't lie - prove I do.
Zionist association with Nazism seems to be a historical fact - as much as the Catholic Church's association with Italy's fascism.
I'm not suggesting it was part of their philosophy on the part of the Zionists - pragmatism seems to have played a part, at least, that it the impression I have gained from the litle reading I have done on the subject
Let's face it, Brtian appeased Hitler up to the point that they had no alternative - quite a lot of that went beyond paragmaitism - go read Rothermere's newspapers or the Right Club publications or see members of the Royal arselicking "Herr Hitler"
New Germany was to be "the bulwark against Bolshevism" as a famous cigar-smoking politician once remarked.
Denying all these facts, as Teribus and Keith have, alters that not one iota
Once more you arrogantly refuse to link any of your claims - perhaps you should have stayed in the pub - that sort of shite goes down better around closing time.
As for lies - your mate has just surpassed himself on the other thread - made my week
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:28 AM

Out of order Shaw??? Far from it you lying bastard - YOU old son have been caught out - YOU and your pals have YET, after four years and countless unfounded allegations, been unable to give one single example of either myself, Akenaton or Keith A lying. HELL you haven't even been able to counter with any sort of cogent argument anything that we have stated.

By the way Mr Teacher Sir - THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, please pay attention in the hope that that will penetrate your thick skull - in that belief "Red Ken" is living in a f**kin' fantasy world (His usual residence as most people have known full well throughout his time in public life) - instead of trying to be clever try reading the link that your pal Jim put up - it doesn't say what he thinks it does. As usual as you did in ALL the WWI threads you argue from complete and utter total ignorance - you don't have a soddin' clue - which is why on all those threads you, and your pals, got absolutely hammered and were made to look stupid. Perhaps you should stick to munching broccoli and as you want a musical dimension I've got a suggestion for your next CD Title - "Blowing out my arse" - as that would appear to be the orifice you do most of your communicating through.

Points of comparison between you and your mates and "National Socialists"??

- Your adherence to ideology over everything else.
- Raging intolerance to any other view than your own.
- Your belief in your superiority, which fosters a totally erroneous faith in the fact that you think you are never wrong (Other more honest individuals admit their errors and mistakes - You do not)
- You blatantly lie and fully expect to get away with those lies believing that by constant repetition it somehow becomes true and accepted as fact (Straight out of Joseph Goebbels bag of tricks that one Shaw).
- Your belief that mob rule is justified in order to get your own way.

Like all bullies you and your pals squeal like stuck pigs the second there is a "push back". OK for Jim to accuse people right, left and centre of being Nazis, but the minute that you and your pals find yourselves on the receiving end it's an indignant cry of "How dare you!!!" - I tell you how I dare Shaw - With remarkable ease you lying GIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM

You people need to remember that the accusations against Livingstone and others come from Labour not Mudcat.
We are just the messengers.

Huff Post yesterday,
"One of Labour's most senior former officials has urged Jeremy Corbyn to step aside in the wake of the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone.
Mike Creighton, Labour's Director of Audit and Risk Management until last month, said that it was "incomprehensible" that the former Mayor of London had been given "a slap on the wrist" despite being found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute.
Creighton, who effectively ran the party's legal, governance and disciplinary compliance team, said that it was time for Corbyn to consider "retirement" following the decision to suspend Livingstone for another year for his remarks about Hitler and Zionism."

"The former staffer, who has never before urged Corbyn to step aside, also claimed that he had advised the Labour leader to make a strong speech condemning anti-semitism last year at the height of the row, but was ignored."

"Creighton's remarks came amid strong condemnation by deputy leader Tom Watson and other Shadow Cabinet ministers of the ruling on Tuesday night by the party's disciplinary panel, the National Constitutional Committee (NCC).
With fresh calls for a re-think, HuffPost UK understands that both Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham will also criticise the decision."

"Deputy leader Watson said he felt "ashamed" by the NCC decision, declaring "my party is not living up to its commitment to have a zero tolerance approach to anti-semitism".
MPs including Shadow Cabinet ministers Keir Starmer and Barry Gardiner, Yvette Cooper, Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting all united to criticise the failure to expel the former Mayor."

""All charges brought against the odious Livingstone were found proven. And yet, unaccountably, the punishment didn't even fit the least of these charges…"

"He said that the failure to expel Livingstone meant that "anti-Semitism has air to breathe in the Labour Party".
"And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government have gained ground today."

"it gives carte blanche to the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left – to raise their evil standards on the parapets of the Labour Party. Apparently with Jeremy Corbyn's calm indifference."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-should-go-says-mike-creighton-former-labour-head-of-risk-management-tom-watson-anti-semitism-claims_uk_58e4b71fe4b0d0b7e1663303

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:41 AM

"You have yet to produce one lie I have told" - Jim (Kitchener) Carroll

You have got to be kidding haven't you Jim. The list of your lies is so long I haven't a clue where to begin. The number of lies that you have knowingly and deliberately told litters the threads of this Forum to such an extent that I don't have to search for any of them, I just have to wait until the next one comes along (You ARE that dependable) - in that respect you're rather like that Geyser, "Old Faithful", in Yellowstone National Park.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 04:07 AM

So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger. Not that I have any time for Red Ken and I believe he is a liability, but not for the reasons bandied about at the moment. In that respect he was just stupid. The point being that both you and Keith are applying once law to yourselves. "It was not me, I am only repeating what other people have said." and Livingstone, who was only repeating what other people have said.

On to much pleasanter things. Had a wonderful day with the Grandsons yesterday. Walked from our house and in minutes the youngest and I were on a farm track leading up the valley. Apart from much complaining about the smell of muckspreading he was really enjoying himself. He had control as he was carrying the whistle and compass :-) We made it all the way up to Lund's Tower and ate our sandwiches sheltered from the wind behind the parapet of said folly before making our way down another track through the hamlet or homestead of Bent. When we returned we had a bit of a rest and then all of us went for a car ride up to the second tower, Cowling Pinnacle, and walked the half mile to, yet again, Lund's Tower! Off to the baths today. This grandson minding business keeps you fit if nothing else :-)

Cheers

DtG

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 04:24 AM

"The list of your lies is so long I haven't a clue where to begin"
Surprise me and begin
Failure to do so will prove you a liar
You wandt a pissing cometition between who tells the most porkie- you and your lying mate - bring it on
I have never ever told a lie or deliberately attempted to deceive on this forum - ifI thought it necessary to do so I really wouldn't bother participation - you people are the only ones to have declared to have won something - go count how many times Keith has crowed "I won - you lose" - seven times on this thread alone.
This is a debating forum - not a 'who had the biggest willie' competition.
Lying is immaterial, as far as debating with you pair of brain-deads is concerned is totally unnecessary - your stupidity, ignorance and strutting arrogance makes lying a waste of time - you do our job by destroying your own crass arguments quite adequately.
"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies
I put your arrogantly put claims that The Sabra Shatila Stadium could not have been used as it was in a state of ruin down to your crass ignorance - I have never claimed it was lie
Similarly, your stupid ignorance in asking what the Falangists were doing at the airport - not lies, simple dogshit ignorance.
Your particular list is endless and going back as far as I can remember.
Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies
Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap.
Keith has now gon viral on lying - go see his latest efforts on the 'Andrew Neil thread, where he claims the reverse on something he busted a gut on about Assad - mindlessly stupdi lying - not mistakes - giant porkies you could choke an elephant on
Yo want to claim I lie - prove it, don't allude to it with slime-ball accusations
You pollute this forum with your arrogance and your spectacular ignnorance
Keith
More meaningles opinions without either evidence and foundation
Meanwhile - back at the ranch
MASSIVE CHRISTIAN OVER-REPRESENTATION IN SEXUAL ABUSE AND PEOPLE TRAFFICKING
Do not ever again accuse Muslims or Travellers of being "over-represented of anything like this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

I find it quite funny when right wing racists, homophobes and the terminally intollerant start to call people Nazis. Just shows the limit of their imaginations :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:18 AM

You're a bad-tempered probably very old sod, I know that, Teribus. Take a chill pill.

You're not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer. Labour, travellers, Pakistanis. Maybe you're secretly a member of AIPAC. That's what they do to anyone who dares to criticise Israel in any way. Smear, smear, smear. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic. I'm still waiting to hear why I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government: THIS

the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left: THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM

The word is baiters.

When I criticise the actions of the Israeli government, I'm not pretending anything. As I've said once before in the last 24 hours, I don't need anyone else to tell me what I'm really saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm really saying. It's amazing that people like you, Teribus and Keith, who come here with an extremely lopsided, inflexible and narrow agenda, always want to ascribe that same attribute to everyone who doesn't agree with you. Well why not cast out the plank. I like my country and hate my government. I support the right of Israel to not only exist but to prosper in security and peace. But I hate what the Israeli government does in many areas of endeavour, and, as I live in a free country, I shall say so if I like. Now I want you to dissect this post of mine (without pretending that you're a mind-reader) and tell me, without resorting to fatuous definitions or appealing to authority, if YOU think I've said anything antisemitic, and why you think it. Over to you.

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

Those are the words of your one of your fellow Labour Party members, described as one of Labour's most senior former officials. I agree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:41 AM

Oh, and of course the word is baiters and I was waiting with bated breath for you to tell me so. Unfortunately that's the way it's written in the quote I copied so I'd advise you to aim you rectification at the Huffington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Dave,
there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying.

If he had stated that historical fact in isolation he would not have been found guilty of bringing his party into disrepute.
He is charged with anti-Semitism.

He tried to use that historical nugget to justify Naz Shah's anti-Semitism. That is why he has been further suspended while expulsion is still being considered following outrage at the leniency showed.
(Outrage from within Labour, like all the complaints of anti-Semitism over the last year or so.)

No other party have had any of these issues.
Just Labour.

Steve,
re not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer.

Not true. I did not start this discussion, and have only reported what has gone on within Labour. None of it has come from me.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic.

I have never said it was. I have actually said it was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM

Steve,
I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

Of course you have.
Labour MP John Mann.
Mann told Livingstone, "you are a lying racist"
Asked if he thought Livingstone was anti-Semitic, Mann said, "Yes he is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-suspended-from-labour-party-for-antisemitism-and-hitler-comments_uk_5721fbd9e4b0a1e971cb2513

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Ah, but you see Keith, John Mann didn't use the specific word "antisemite" so Shaw will worry that bone for a couple hundred posts now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:09 AM

"and mainly the Trotskyite left:"
Trotsy was a jew - the Trotskyist movement was founded by Jews
All left movements are basically international and non-racist - most were founded by Jews
On the other hand, German right wing multinationalism sent six million Jews to their deaths - Capitalist industry in Germany used Jews as slave labour.
Antisemitism at its most extreme is a phenomenon of right wing politics
So when a a supposed supporter of the Jewish people who refuses to condemn having Parliamentary Politicians described as putting their politics before their culture and who persistently indulges in one of the basic no-nos of defined antisemitism, attacks the left - where does that put him politically
I would say on the side of those who carried out the Holocaust.
I don't suppose you'd care to comment on any of this honestly, would you Bobad!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:10 AM

Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism? " And I remind you again that no-one in the party has said that Ken Livingstone is an antisemite. Charged means nothing on its own, does it? I note that you ignored my post describing Ken Livingstone's legacy over decades by virtue of his fights for equality for all minorities and for an end to discrimination, and how he worked extensively with London's Jewish community. I suppose that when you are relentlessly confronted with Blair/Thatcher/Murdoch briefing against you you may learn how to be occasionally undiplomatic.

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as antisemitic (careful now - as I recall, she didn't even mention Jews) and I'll tell you why you're wrong. Don't bother telling me what some committee or definition says - I want to know what YOU think. That would be a first. You have GOT your own brain, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:25 AM

"He is charged with anti-Semitism."
And it is very noticeable that nobody here is prepared to discuss that "historical nugget - which has a fair amount of truth attached to it.
Personally, I think was stupidly insensitive to bring it up in the present atmosphere, but stupidity isn't antisemitism.
Livingstone allowed himself to fall into the hands of the Anti - BDS crowd, but nobody has proved antisemitism against him or anybody - stating historical facts isn't antisemitic
The clause in the definition that states that it is antisemitic to compare the action of the Israelis with the Nazis has always intrigued me - what if they are behaving like the Nazis, as many, including Jews have accused them of?
Can you have a definition that makes truth unacceptable?
If you can - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:53 AM

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

See Keith's post of 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM, which I am sure you already have but, hey, anytime there's a bone for you to worry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:05 PM

"So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger." - DtG

OK then Gnome how did this "collaboration" manifest itself?

Collaboration:
NOUN
1: The action of working with someone to produce something:

2: Traitorous cooperation with an enemy:

Give us examples of this collaboration. There was none, and it is offensive and anti-Semitic in the extreme to state that any Jewish organisation would collude with the Nazis in the deaths of the German Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:21 PM

Steve
Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism?

If that had been all he said, yes.
It was not. He tried to use that to defend Shah's undisputed (except by you people) anti-Semitism.
His defence of anti-Semitism brought the party into disrepute. The party found him guilty.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as anti-Semitic

We all know what she said.
The party found it anti-Semitic. That is good enough for me. You did not. That signifies nothing!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:10 PM

No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith. And cut out the stupid and vacuous "you people." That's an expression often used to talk about "the other." "These people..." Heard the apartheid regime using that expression quite a lot. Why am I not surprised that you resort to it? By the way, I agree with Jim that Ken has been bloody stupid. But over the decades he's been a good man who has occasionally resorted to stupidity. As I said, it can't be easy behaving like an angel when you have a hawkish and hostile media, Thatcher and Blair at your throat for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:12 PM

"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies - Jim

1: At no point at all in his time as Secretary of State for War was Kitchener ever forced by anybody to resign - Not opinion, simple, well documented FACT - To state otherwise is a deliberate lie even although it may have been stated by someone writing in ignorance.

2: In 1914 when the British went to war, they had the smallest Army of all the combatant powers. An army geared to fight a mobile war, it was that capability that saved the BEF as a fighting force throughout the latter part of 1914 and much of 1915. They only had "field artillery" and the one single arsenal in the British Isles at Woolwich made two types of shells for the artillery arm of the British Army High Explosive and Shrapnel, the production of the latter was greater than the former because that is what the Army said it wanted - NOT Kitchener - who held no direct Army Command during the course of the war. Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War to do two things:

(a) Raise Britain's first citizen Army - Which he did successfully - Britain ended the war with an army ten times the size it was in 1914.

(b) Put Britain on a full time war footing in order to keep Britain in the War and keep it's armed forces supplied with whatever they needed. It was Kitchener who did the spade work that Lloyd George later took the credit for.

3: As Kitchener did not directly Command any military formation in the field he can hardly be guilty of crassly killing anybody. Yes it was a mistake on your part to state that he had been forced to resign and it would have remained as a simple mistake had you acknowledged that and corrected what you said - You did neither. Instead you maintained the line that he had been forced to resign and that, in the light of the fact that your mistake had been brought to your attention is where your simple mistake becomes a deliberately told lie.

SABRA-SHATILA:
Your claims are based upon the unverified stories told by proven liars as part of a propaganda campaign. Your claim is that a mass burial site is located under the only sports stadium in the area. A site that was in ruins at the time of the massacre, there was no construction effort on the site at the time you allege the bodies were buried. The site subsequently was the scene of massive ground and construction works in 1997 and again in 2015 - NOT ONE SINGLE BODY OR ANY HUMAN REMAINS AT ALL WERE UNEARTHED AT THE SITE - Tells me that there was no mass grave as YOU claim - another myth, another lie that you cling to like a limpet to a rock.

Lebanese Army and the Red Cross recovered and buried the bodies of those killed at Sabra-Shatila in 1982, they did so under the gaze of the world's press, UN Observers, the Lebanese Government and a host of other international bodies. Those were the only bodies found and they came to nowhere near the 3,500 ESTIMATE that you claim and lay at the door of Israel. By the way Carroll any ESTIMATE is NOT A FACT. To present it as such is a deliberate lie.

"Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies"

Priceless Jim, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". Only an ignoramus persists in repeating something that has been comprehensively demonstrated as being untrue as you have done "Ad nauseam" and expects it to be believed. Repeat something that is known to be untrue Jim means that you are telling lies.

"Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap."

There are two examples given above. Your boast -"I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's" - were that true Jim, old son, you would have done so already. For years Keith A has asked you to supply just one example and you have pointedly failed to do so spectacularly at each time of asking. I challenge you to do so now - and my bet is that no such example will be forthcoming all we will get will be some name calling, accusations of being every "....ist" in creation, accusations of being guilty of every "....ism" in the book, along with your usual empty bluster and bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:00 PM

You somehow missed the other definition of collaboration, Teribus.

Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to realize or achieve something successfully.

I wonder why that is? Whether the Nazis were serious or not the Zionists worked with them in the hope of achieving something sucessfuly. Still doubt that? Maybe you need to look up the Haavara Agreement. As I say, I don't have a lot of time for Livingstone but to nail him for something he just ain't done will not do any good for anyone.

Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:14 PM

Steve,
No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith.

No.
I will not debate with you what is and is not anti-Semitism.
There is an accepted definition. You dispute it, but what is your opinion worth?

The Labour Party accepted that her comments were anti-Semitic and she herself agreed, so who cares whether you do or not.

Dave,
Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

I only know what Labour people tell us Dave.
He was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute through his anti-Semitism.

Why should I research it for you? You can read what Labour people say as easily as I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:08 PM

"Priceless Jom, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". "
As devoid of an answer as that eh?
That you don't accept facts that don't suit you doesn't make them lies - I thought every moron knew that
You have produced nothing to prove they are wrong - you never have and you never will
Even if I was wrong would not make me a liar, it would make me wrong
Only a mean-minded twat would suggest otherwise
Is that the best of my "lies" you can come up with   
I reckon that proves you a liar, doesn't it you have produced nothing but denials and buffoonish mistakes - where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars" - where is your proof that are - if you claim they are prove liar you must have the proof - where is it?   
You've obviously spent the day searching for my lies and come up with - zilch!
You are a pathetic liar - all racists are.
You and Keith are a matched pair - no brains - no knowledge - no principles - no honesty and no self respect
If you had the latter ytou wouldn't spend so much time humiliating yourself by behaving like a schoolyard bully
Adults don't do that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 05:38 PM

Ah, OK. Got it now then. Someone who is in the club says it is so, so therefore it must be true. Funny thing is, I remember someone on here calling someone else a thick c**t. I guess if someone said it, it must be true. As to why they actualy said it, well, why should I research it for you? You can read what Mudcat people say as easily as I can.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:04 PM

I didn't ask you to debate what is and what isn't antisemitism. I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic. You've lost courage, haven't you. You know that you'll be shot down whatever you say. Have you actually got more respect for her than I have? I think she was a bloody idiot and I think she grovelled in order to save her own skin. I can't respect that. Typical bloody politician. But I want to know what YOU think was antisemitic about her comment. Man up, Keith. You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark. Stupid, yes. Lousy timing, yes. Antisemitic? Definitely not. If you disagree, let us know precisely why. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial. Yet it's the Labour Party, and only the Labour Party, that you ever invoke in order to confirm your prejudices against its members accused of antisemitism. You don't even invoke yourself. Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride. You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong. You hate the Labour Party but when it says something that fits your agenda it suddenly becomes a paragon. Your arguments are expedient, disreputable and highly dishonest, not to speak of of remarkably shallow.

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

Bloody brilliant recipe here, Dave, gleaned from a pack of Sainsbury's Vittoria cherry tomatoes (which have been very good lately). The quality of the cherry toms is paramount. This would do for a lunch for two, but if you also have a pot of hummus with something to dip you have a meal for two in front of the telly. It's just assembly, no cooking.

Peel two ripe avocados and slice them into strips. Two's quite a lot but one isn't enough, but I love the buggers, so what the hell.

Take one ball of cow mozzarella (buffalo is too sloppy and wet for this recipe). Don't buy own brands. They're shit. Buy Galbani. Drain and slice it into thin pieces the size of a 50p.

Take 200g or a bit less of your loveliest cherry toms and cut them in half.

Get a fancy serving dish, shallow, and arrange the slices of cheese and avocado sort of alternating. Don't sweat it. Throw the tomatoes on top in casual fashion. Sprinkle a sparse quantity of freshly-ground pepper over it all. Easy tiger. Tear a few fresh basil leaves on top, then splash on top the finest extra virgin oil you can get your hands on (recommendation: Marks and Spencer Tuscan - ten quid but you will not regret it and it will last for ages). It's the tastiest grub I ever eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:36 PM

By the way, that's called tricolore salad, red, white and green, the colours of the Italian flag!

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

Next week for two nights I'm cooking for seven or eight people. Some of them will not eat pork, prawns or mushrooms on religious grounds, and one of them is a non-piscivore vegetarian. Now there's a challenge. I'm planning a big pasta bake for one evening, gambling slightly on the fact that some veggies will eat parmesan and mozzarella in spite of the calf rennet. I won't countenance substitutes. It consists of layers of cheese, orecchiette pasta and tomato sauce (left chunky - none of that passata smoothie for me!) with a hit of chilli and basil, baked in the oven. It's one of Italy's favourite dishes. For the other evening I'm doing a bean stew, mixed beans with whatever I have to hand but definitely including cannellini and borlotti, maybe a chickpea or two, with tomato, onion and chilli, with lemony ciabatta dumplings. Plenty of parsley in there. If they don't like it they can bugger off!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars"

Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events.
If that is not true, quote something.

Steve,
I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic.

She and the party leadership agreed it was anti-Semitic.
That is enough for me.

You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark.

Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism.

. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial.

Not true at all. I am an ex-Labour voter who would like to be able to vote for them again.

Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride.

How would I know what goes on inside the party?
I read what insiders say, and repeat it here.
What is wrong with that?

You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong.

You are making shit up now. If I have ever expressed either of those views quote me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM

No cooking for me today. Glorious weather and...

Wait for it...

Haworth beer festival:-)

Just had Yorkshire smoke house kippers (not Whitby but next best) with scrambled egg for breakfast. Going to try some Goan chicken soup for lunch then bus to Keighley and on to Haworth. Then, who knows:-) Probably get a steam train back to Keighley around tea time.

Off to Ingleton again tomorrow with Grandsons and Daughter in law.

We are going to try a variation on your orzo dish on Monday. Daughter I-L is piscavore veggie so going to use fish pie mix instead of pancetta.

Wish me luck for all events :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

Try a Festive Jaloise .............. Sprout Pie

Par boil sprouts, mix with thinly sliced onion, red & green bell peppers, chestnuts with a cheese sauce in a puff pastry case.

Sounds bloody awful but is in fact wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:03 AM

I love talking grub. I'm getting inspired. We're having chicken arrabbiata tonight (often have it with salmon but we've had that this week already). I like big chunky rigati pasta instead of slippery little penne which I've never been that keen on. Reminds me of those nasty little pots of cold congealed "pasta salad" that supermarkets sell. Shoulder of Gloucester Old Spot tomorrow (bought at Gloucester Services, though their carrier bags have Tebay on them!) with tons of crackling and all the trimmings.

Seems like your speciality is chicken, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

By the way, Keith:

"Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism."

Not so. No-one has "defended antisemitism." Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said. She was stupid, but she said a stupid thing about Israel, a country, and she didn't mention Jews. Her remark was a reaction to the behaviour of the Israeli regime. Not antisemitic, whatever she said in order to save her career. I can't respect that. At least Ken has stuck to his guns. The pillock hasn't done either himself or the party any good but he's a tough sod, unlike Naz, and he hasn't wavered.

I don't defend Ken and I don't defend Naz. They have both been idiots. Being an idiot doesn't mean that you're antisemitic, as Jim said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

"Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events."
Stop doing this Keith - your arguments went down the pan years ago
The only people who witnessed the events were the killers, the survivors and the Israelis who facilitated the massacres
You have dismissed the survivors as "liars", Israel "disappeared" the killers who were prepared to give an account of what happened and Israel is the accused and must be judged on that fact
What we have to go on are the independent researches of those who reported on the matter, the independent enquiry which found Israel "probably responsible for the massacre" and simple common sense.
Even Istreali soldiers testified as to Israel's guilt.
You have already said that you are just putting Israel's case - fine by me - it puts everything you claim into perfect context "they didn't do it because they say they didn't do it"
Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did - your shite about "decent democracies" staying silent is just that - shite
If they were half decent they would not stay silent and watch as Israel is "unfairly accused of what that they are - what kind of decency is that?
You will continue to ignore this last point - also fine by me.
Like all of my postings - none is for your benefit - I don't waste time with closed and empty minds
The usual bollocks about you bizarre 'guilt without charges' Labour antisemitism
More distortions about your voting Labour - you boasted of voting for Blair - a war criminal who narrowly missed being indicted for same
That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party
No sign of Teribus - he must be still looking for my "lies" and those of the "proven liars" - so he may be some time,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:28 AM

"I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was anti-Semitic" - Shaw

Naz Shah "My words were anti-Semitic"

Extract:

Ms Shah apologised in April for online posts, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States.

Labour has now reinstated the Bradford West MP, who in her first interview about the controversy blamed her "ignorance".

"I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," Ms Shah told BBC Radio 4's World At One.

In a Facebook post in 2014, before she became an MP, Ms Shah shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".

That Shaw is denying the right of the internationally recognised Sovereign State of Israel to exist - Anti-Semitism according to the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism and according every single political party in the UK.

Bottled it Shaw - didn't mention Jews - "relocate Israel into United States" - Just who the f**k do you think she meant relocating to the United States by shifting Israel to the United States you lying git.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus
Then that makes you a liar£hat was originally the suggestion of Jewish Norman Finklestein
Bit stupid to call anybody a "lying git" with your current track record
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:58 AM

Jewish members of the Labour Party are right to chide Livingstone and those in the party who wouldn't expel him for "enabling" anti-Semites to support Labour. But Livingstone, who in his pigheaded obstinacy didn't apologize, even after being found guilty of all charges and receiving his minor sentence, is doing us all a favor. (Some in Labour actually believe he's causing trouble out of envy that the much-less-talented Corbyn unexpectedly became party leader.)

The crass offensiveness of his tirades has made many more level-headed voices on the left admit that Jews, like any other minority, have a right to define for themselves what's abusive to them, and that while Zionism's merits and flaws can be discussed and disputed, ascribing any connection between Zionism and Nazism is anti-Semitic. The outrage Livingstone has caused on the British left has forced even his old friend Corbyn to limply repudiate him, and this case is now reverberating far beyond.

Anshel Pfeffer - Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:13 AM

Reuters yesterday,
"Labour lawmaker Wes Streeting told Livingstone on BBC news late on Tuesday: "Your poor judgment, your crass remarks and your lack of apology brings the Labour Party into disrepute."
Fellow Labour member of parliament Luciana Berger, who has suffered anti-Semitic abuse, said the party had reached "a new low".
"Why is anti-Semitism being treated differently from any other form of racism?" she wrote on Twitter."

Steve,
Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said.

I do have time for most senior Labour people.
Labour found them both guilty of ant-Semitism. Why should anyone care what your very biased view is? Your view of anti-Semitism has been proved wrong. The definitions you rejected are accepted by everyone else. You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Jim, you specified Fisk and Siegel.
They saw nothing that contradicts Israel's version.
If that is not a FACT, quote them!

Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did

That would be your "verified facts" again.
You could not produce a single one, remember!!

That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party

True. This lot could never be elected once, never mind three times in a row!

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus

You have told lots about me Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Well let me see what we have then Jim?


Jim Lie #1:

You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign.

You can tell us all now that when, after this had been pointed out to you that you still persisted in stating that he had been forced to resign - that being untrue and you knowing it to be untrue meant that you were deliberately lying.

Jim Lie #2

You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila refugee camps in 1982 and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium.

You can now acknowledge that your figure of 3,500 is far from being factual is only at best an unverified "estimate" and that during extensive work done at the Camille Chamoun Stadium the remains of not one single body has been uncovered.

Jim Lie #3
Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

Admit that there are no records of the British Government selling any weapons to the Syrians, and that despite being asked and given every opportunity to do so you have not in five years come up with any proof to substantiate your claim that they did.

Jim Lie #4
That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial.

Despite being given links to his Court Martial papers and a full account of his arrest, trial and subsequent execution you still persisted with your lie.

Jim Lie #5
That Brigadier Frank Percy Crozier summarily executed sentries who fell asleep on duty.

Blatant lie, only two such executions took place in the entire course of the war and they took place in Mesopotamia a theatre of war in which Frank Percy Crozier never served. Both men were tried and found guilty by Court Martial.

Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list.But the five given above will serve to keep the pot boiling for the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:51 AM

You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Oh, he definitely knows what most accept as anti-Semitism but he has to continue the charade of insisting on his own invented definition otherwise he would have to own up to his guilt which, just like Livingstone, he doesn't have the moral courage to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Well, Teribus, quoting Naz Shah as if she was some ex cathedra-talking guru is very amusing. She is a left-wing Labour MP and I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything. But she suddenly speaks with the sword of truth - when it suits you. Israel is not Jews. Israel is a country containing a quarter non-Jews as well as a good number of Jews who detest what their government does. Antisemitism is attacks targeted at just Jews, Billyboy, no-one else. Naz Shah was reacting in a stupid way to the actions of the Israeli regime. She did not say that she hated all Jews and wanted them all moved to America. In fact, she didn't mention Jews at all. She did not say that the Jews in Israel should all be moved. Now that would have been antisemitic. And she was being totally out of order but she was not at all making a serious suggestion. I can't call her stupid for grovelling, because the grovelling had the desired effect of saving her skin. I dislike Naz Shah and she has a bloody long way to go in order to prove that she can be a serious politician. But she did not make an antisemitic remark, and all those people in the party who say she did are saying it because they are scared of not saying it.

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM

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

And posting your food snobbery on a thread about the Labour party is what Shaw?.......HYPOCRITE!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:55 AM

"I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything"

You are a slave to ideology Shaw - I am NOT, so I am not surprised that that is the way you'd think.

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

Hah bloody ha. So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind. You and Keith are the two most led-by-the-nose ideologues it's ever been my misfortune to encounter.

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling. I would estimate that all bar about four people who read these benighted threads welcome it as a leavening of the bread (now there's an idea - I might come back to that). Clearly, your understanding of trolling is about as hazy as your understanding of antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM

"You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign."
I accepted his resignation was not accepted
Even if I had been wrong - it was not a lie - I did not invent it.
You used pedantry to absolve his deadly incompetence
THat, as far as I am concerned, is lying.
"You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila "
Nope - I said "up to - the figure is not known thanks to Israeli cover-up
and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium."
That is a lie - I said some of the bosies were buried there - I alsop pointed out that ther were mass graves in and around the camp and that some were found thrown by the roadside - it's all there in the links.
At no time have I ever claimed that all the bodies were buried under the stadium
You continue to lie
"Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria."
Nope - Keith turned my "sniper ammunition" into "a few sniper rifles"
The ammunition was licenced and sold
You claime first, nothing ws sold, then no licence was ever issued, then it was issued but rescinded, then it was for sporting equipment, then the order came too early to be used by the Homs snipers, then teh ammunition that was sold was the wrong size for Assad's weapons (no size of ammunition was ever specified)
Your whole defence of this sale had been a constant string of lies and inventions)
"That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial."
I know nothing whatever of the execution of Crozier - my only reference to summary executions was to provide evidence that they happened.
You are lying - I persisted in nothing regarding this
If pigs started to fly and you did provide evifdence of anything you said, I would have been incredibly stupid to ignore it
Do you want to lik me to my persisting in this or anything I have been guilty of when evidence was provided?
Now fuck off and provide some evidence - any moron can invent a list
And then you can provide us with proof of the dishonesty of "proven liars
"Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list"
I would like you to start - you have provided nothing but unqualified accusations
Your long list is a lie, but it falls well within your capabilities to prove me wrong
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling.

By my definition it is trolling and goading, and like what was once posted here by some hypocrite:

WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.

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

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: 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 - 12:45 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 06:57 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 - 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 - 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 - 07:41 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 11:25 AM

There ya go Raggy:

UK Government definition of anti-Semitism

That is the one that would now get you charged with inciting hate, or committing a hate crime in the UK - couldn't give a toss about anywhere else.

The likes of Shaw and those who agree with him should take particular note of this bit:

"The UK Government's overall policy is that it is up to the victim to determine whether a crime against them was motivated by any particular characteristics. This builds trust in the police among minority communities, and allows flexibility in our response."

Or in other words Shaw, unless he is Jewish (Oy vey), DOES NOT get to determine what is anti-Semitic and what is not (More or less what bobad has been telling him for ages - in the UK it is NOW overall Government Policy). Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 11:35 AM

You're just getting very silly now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM

Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it.

So we can presume you are saying he is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 12:06 PM

Shah's comments date from 2014.

So why, I wonder, did they only come to light when Corbyn took the leadership?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 01:43 PM

Rag,
Au contaire, the professor has insisted upon a definition other than the one now given. He has gone on at length about it.

Au contraire, it is the same one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM

I would have thought that that was obvious Keith just by reading the link I provided - but then Raggy doesn't really do reading, understanding he does even less - which I suppose explains the daft questions.

Not silly Shaw just accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:05 PM

No, it's just silly, round and round and round we go. There's no end to this. If I give you a recipe you tell me that I lose. Fine. Go and buy yourself a Big Mac. You have no time to cook but I do. Excuse me, I'm just sorting the jacket spuds, roast tomatoes and cold Gloucester Old Spot. Where's that damned corkscrew....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 03:06 PM

That was poetic licence. It's all screwcaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 08:12 PM

You want a REAL antisemitic statement? Check out Trump's mouthpiece Spicer.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 17 - 09:07 PM

Very little point in demonstrating real antisemitic statements around here, Greg. Around here, antisemitism has nothing to do with Jews. It has everything to do with protecting a vicious regime that uses white phosphorus to illuminate its slaughter of children, that leaves hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets all over another country's farmland, which builds an apartheid wall that divides families and robs them of their olive groves, which oversees the massacre of civilians in refugee camps and which steals only the best land with the best water supplies from those of its citizens who happen to be non-Jews. So what we have to do is to lean on, blackmail and lobby till the cows come home all those vulnerable western democracies into accepting a definition that does nothing to protect Jews and everything to protect the regime. Nice!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

Once again you put the case of Israel's enemies, known for their lying propaganda.
None of those accusations stand up to scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 04:10 AM

The Independent,

"The party's decision not to expel Ken Livingstone over his offensive remark that Hitler once supported Zionism will alienate the Jewish community, once loyal and naturally Labour.
They were already heading out because they did not have much confidence in Jeremy Corbyn's stated policy of "zero tolerance" over anti-Semitism. The Livingstone affair was a chance for Labour to regain their trust. Flunked the test. Even Tom Watson, the party's deputy leader, has admitted that Labour is "not living up to its [zero tolerance] commitment"."

"Livingstone was defending Labour's Naz Shah for sharing anti-Semitic Facebook posts before she became an MP. She wasn't even defending herself in this matter, issuing a full apology and showing how to calm such a storm before it rages out of control. Livingstone, however, deliberately did the opposite, repeating his remark ad nauseam even though he knew it caused great offence. He appeared to love the limelight. Bizarrely, he claimed the case against him was part of a plot against Corbyn.
The result has been another damaging episode that Labour could ill afford. For some Jewish Labour members, it will be the final straw. It will also offend a wider group of people. For many voters this affair also underlines an image of a party that seems to have remarkably little to say about the real world"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken-livingstone-labour-anti-semitism-hitler-zionism-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-members-leaving-party-a7667836.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 08:09 AM

Ah, I see we're back to bold. How many more times are you going to repeat this stuff, Keith? Tell me instead what YOU think she said that antisemitic. The exact words that got her into trouble that showed her attacking Jews. Tell me instead what YOU think Ken said that was antisemitic. Man up, Keith. We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times. Quit the hand-wringing and the big messenger boy act. This is a debating forum, supposedly, not a forum for reporting your favourite newspapers and all those Labour people you clearly love so much that you treat them as gurus who speak ex cathedra.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:02 PM

He can repeat it as often as he wants, he can repeat it on this thread for as long as you prats want to discuss weeds, wild flowers, recipes. He can repeat it as often as he wants because he happens to be telling the truth. As for having to explain anything to you Shaw? Well he certainly does not have to do that, even to attempt it would be a complete and utter waste of time - your definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism doesn't count for jack shit and by now everybody knows that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:13 PM

We all know what everybody else thinks.

Yes. The same as me.
Everyone except you Steve, but you still do not believe you could be wrong and everyone else right.

I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:21 PM

Yo Jim:


Another case of non over representation of a certain group

Huddersfield this time 27 men and 2 women over 170 charges concerning 18 vulnerable underage girls over a period of 7 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM

We all know what everybody else thinks.

Yes. The same as me.

Errrr, no. More little porkies I'm afraid Keith. What is the percentage of the population that agrees with you? What sample have you taken to prove this? Unsubstantiated claim once again. You are still suffering from this win and lose syndrome I'm afraid and this is still not a debate.

As to

I enjoy reminding you how isolated and ridiculous you are on this.

If you genuinely feel that then I am sorry for you. You really need to find more enjoyment in life.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:46 PM

Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks."

He was referring to my latest quotes.
(Can you find any contradictory ones Dave?)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:48 PM

Dave, it was Steve who said, "We all know what everybody else thinks."

Did he also say "Yes. The same as me." I could have sworn that was you...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 01:57 PM

I do believe the same as all those I quoted, which Steve said was "everyone else."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 17 - 03:40 PM

Of course you believe those you quoted, Keith. Why else would you have quoted them? But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania. Not sure what enjoying telling someone they are isolated and ridiculous means but pulling the wings off insects seems to be about on par.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:20 AM

"Yo Jim:
Another case of non over representation of a certain group"
So the behavior of a handful of criminals from a community numbering a million and a half can be linked to the entire community - again
Being the raving out-of-the-closet racist that you have proven yourself, you would say that, wouldn't you
You've certainly earned your B.N.P. spurs on this one, haven't you?
Do they hand out the Irish Cross for actions above and beyond...?
No action on any group as small as these has ny significance whatever to which national and cultural group they come from - this is pure "all black men have big dicks" primitive racism, pure and simple - back to 'the 'Windrush/Notting hill riots' days.
If there was a shred of logic to your argument, every Christian in Britain and Ireland would be a potential Child rapist (a fact, you scum don't have the balls even to address) - utter nonsense.
No change in your scummy behavior otherwise - no substation of your Labour Party claims, no response to your having lied about my being a liar and no proof about "proven liars"
This really hasn't ben your year so far.
Your Labour party "serious semitism" claims have become a your little Alamo around two as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah, neither of whom have attacked the Jewish people - which is what antisemitism is
Both criticisd Israel - that is not antisemitism - the civilised world criticises Israel for its behaviour towards the Palestinian people - only the politicians stay silent out of self interest.
When you lot produce examples of Labour politicians smearing Jews, you might have a case, until you do, you haven't simples!
Please don't quote me the political definition of 'antisemitism' - not even the Israelis take any notice of that - they hide behind The Jewish People to void having to answer for their war crimes.
Jim Carroll

.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:35 AM

Incidentally
Your 'Eric Pickles (Erick Picckles, fort chists sake) definition of antisemitism reads:
"Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews."
If that is true for antisemitism, it must be true for all racism against all races and groups
Attacking Muslims or Travellers because of the behaviour of a small handful of criminals is a racist act, pure and simple - must be true, Eric Pickles says so.
Ou perhaps you can explain why there is one set of standards for one ethnic grop and another for other groups
Smells of racism to me!!
I notice Pickles has carefully removed the clause which says it antisemitic to associate the Jewish people with the actions of the State of Israel - who is this political superman!!!
Eric Pickles - you have to be joking!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 AM

As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant.

All these things happening in the UK, in Europe and in the world and Labour have got absolutely nothing to say about any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:56 AM

Dave,
But saying that everyone thinks the same as you is megalomania.

It was Steve who said it was what everyone else thinks, not me.

He said, "We all know what everybody else thinks. You've told us fifty times."

I probably have told him 50 times what everybody else thinks, and it is what I think too.

Jim,
as yet unproven claims about Livingstone and Shah,

Both found guilty by the Labour Party!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:47 AM

"As previously stated Jim - what you think is anti-Semitic is irrelevant."
What you are trying to say is you have no answer to my points
Why should the opinion of a bunch of raving self-exposed racists be any more relevant to that of anybody else - especially on the question of racism
If I weer Keith, I'd be crowing "I won", but I don't go in for that sort of thing
If my opinion Is of no interest, why address me with your racist filth
"Yo Jim:"
I've always believed all racists are thick, but you exceed my wildest expectations
IF IT IS ANTISEMITIC TO BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE ACTIONS OF A FEW CRIMINALS, IT IS EQUALLY RACIST TO BLAME OTHER NATIONAL FOR CULTURAL GROUPS FOR THE SAME THING
"Both found guilty by the Labour Party!"
Since when have politicians been the arbites of right and wrong, especially those with a vested interest in seizing power for a particular party line?
Neither Shah nor Livingstone are guilty of attacking the Jewish people therefore they are not antisemitic and until they do, that is the way it will remain.
Corbyn's actions on Livingstone was correct - he disciplined him for insensitive behaviour not antisemitism - he was right to do so.
Pickles makes an interesting point in his article - there is no longer a workable definition of antisemitism so Britain has had to make up her own.
A survey finds that a quarter of British people have admitted to holding racist views.
You've been given the facts of what percentage of British people hole genuine antisemitic views about Jewish people
Why on earth should the views of the politicians they elect to parliament on antisemitism be worth a tuppeny fart
The Labour party does not have a problem with antisemitism - there is no earthly reason why they should have
On the other hand, when the Tories were accused of islamophobia, they confirmed that accusation by electing a racist as foreign secretary - they have yet to hold an enquiry
Which twin uses Toni - as the old adverts used to ask?
You have no case - only unproven accusations - noting has changed while I have been away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:59 AM

Different language
Different morality
Different planet

DtG

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

Found guilty of what, Keith? Can YOU give me the PRECISE WORDS they used that caused them to found guilty, and of what - the precise charge, please? That would clear this up. Who found them guilty? What were their legal qualifications? Antisemitism is a serious charge. Have the police been involved? Or are you going to say that what the Labour Party say is good enough for you? The Labour Party that you've been smearing for a living for months? I dont smear the Labour Party and a lot of what it says isn't good enough for me, and I'm a paid-up member. You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 05:53 AM

"You and Teribus are both arch-cherrypickers"
Don't know about cherrypickers
They're a classic pair of lemons
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Who is "attacking" Travellers and Muslims Jim?

What points are you trying to make? The only points you seem to bother about are those created by your own distortions.

In the case of Travellers, when it comes to instances, arrests and convictions for unlawful detention, exploitation and slaving that particular group IS Massively over represented - Simple statement of FACT - no attack on Travellers in general, nothing said about ALL Travellers at all.

In the case of sexual exploitation gangs a certain culture - Note that JIM "CULTURE NOT RELIGION" - is over represented.

Shah denied the right of the existence of the internationally recognised state of Israel to exist - she acknowledged that, putting it down to her own ignorance and publicly apologised for doing so - What you think Carroll is of no consequence whatsoever.

Livingstone was found guilty of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute with his ludicrous and offensive comments related to Hitler and Zionism - he has been under suspension since Spring last year and unless he too acknowledges the error of his ways and retracts what he has said then he will remain under suspension for another year, because the NEC of the Labour Party are too gutless to expel him, too gutless to stand up to the hard left Hamas supporters who have taken over the Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM

Not that this pair would be in the slightest bit interested but this is an opinion offered by British Jews - but what do the Jews know if they don't back up th opinions of a pair of raving racists
Jessica Elgot
Thursday 30 March 2017 07.00 BST Last modified on Thursday 30 March 2017 07.01 BST

Ken Livingstone will appear before Labour's most senior body on Thursday, which will rule on whether he will be expelled from the party for comments he made linking Adolf Hitler to support for Zionism.

The former mayor of London, who has been suspended from the party for 11 months, said he would present evidence to the national constitutional committee (NCC) to back up his claims in a series of TV and radio interviews that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" before he "went mad".

In a statement before the hearing, Livingstone said he had not broken any Labour party rule and said he would blame expulsion on the political balance of the committee rather than his own conduct. His case will be presented by Michael Mansfield QC.

"I am being attacked by the right wing of the Labour party because I support Palestinian human rights and strongly back our leader, Jeremy Corbyn," he said. "There is no real evidence against me, so hopefully the Labour panel will dismiss the charge against me. Only a biased and rigged jury could find against me."

Labour's national executive committee has referred the case to the NCC, the only body that can expel members. The meeting will be conducted in a private hearing of the NCC panel, despite calls from Livingstone for it to be made public.

Advertisement

Mansfield, who has previously represented families of victims at the Bloody Sunday inquiry and advised Corbyn during the legal challenge to the party's leadership election in summer 2016, will present Livingstone's case. His solicitor is Imran Khan, who has represented the family of Stephen Lawrence.

In a letter setting out the case against Livingstone, Labour's general secretary, Iain McNicol, said the former mayor must answer the charge that his conduct was "grossly detrimental" to the party, also citing his defence of Facebook posts by Bradford West MP Naz Shah.

Shah apologised for the posts which she admitted were antisemitic, suggesting transporting Jews from Israel to the United States. However, McNicol said, Livingstone then went on air to defend her and claimed the posts were not antisemitic.

"It is widely accepted and obvious that Ms Shah's posts were antisemitic and offensive," McNicol wrote. "Indeed, as stated above, Ms Shah herself accepted that her comments were antisemitic. So, too, did the spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn MP."

McNicol said Livingstone's comments about Hitler and Zionism had come unprompted to BBC London's Vanessa Feltz. "You deliberately introduced Hitler's alleged support for Zionism into the discussion with Ms Feltz, in the knowledge that, or reckless as to whether, it would cause offence to members of the Jewish community," McNicol wrote.

Livingstone will also present five witness statements from Jewish Labour party members in his defence, all five of whom are involved in anti-Zionist and Palestinian rights activism.

LSE professor Jonathan Rosenhead, a proponent of a boycott of academic collaboration with Israeli universities, said Livingstone's comments were "not perhaps expressed as elegantly as they might have been" but said he
did not find them "to be in any way antisemitic or offensive".

"It would be a tragic mistake if the Labour party were to find Ken Livingstone guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the party," he went on.

Walter Wolfgang, a former member of Labour's NEC, said in his statement: "As a Jewish member of the Labour party, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, I take the issue of antisemitism extremely seriously. Ken Livingstone has an outstanding record of fighting against racism and antisemitism. This hearing into Ken's actions is a travesty."

Another witness, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, the founding member of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, said Livingstone was being "pilloried because he is a prominent figure on the left of the Labour party".

"Those who allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredit the term," she said. "His track record in public office is a clear testament to his commitment to supporting the Jewish community and fighting racism in all its forms, including antisemitism."

The committee will also hear evidence from the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Newmark, who will appear at the behest of Labour's NEC and will be cross-examined by Livingstone's team.

Newmark, who has also submitted written evidence, said he hoped the panel would be focused on the issue of disrepute, rather than Hitler and Zionism. "I hope the panel will keep the hearing consistent to the charge, rather than allow it to be a trial of history," he said.

"I've agreed to give evidence because it is clear that whatever debate there may be about the facts or whether Ken's statements were antisemitic, the question is whether he has brought the party into disrepute. And I know from the acres of press coverage and the response we get campaigning in Jewish areas, the remarks have been damaging."

After the decision is made, the NCC may not issue any public statement but there is little practically that the committee can do to stop it being made public by the accused.

The committee, which has 11 members, is made up of representatives from trade unions, constituency labour parties, councillors and a socialist societies affiliated with Labour.

There is no comprehensive public list of the members, but the committee includes long-serving Labour councillors and activists, most of whom have been in the party for many decades from all sides of Labour's political spectrum. Their identities are not widely publicised to avoid external pressure on decision-making.

The committee is currently chaired by Rose Burley, a councillor and Labour member for 52 years, who also presided over the expulsion of George Galloway. Three of them will be on the panel that decides Livingstone's fate and a decision should be made as soon as the hearing ends or the following day.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/ken-livingstone-to-appear-before-labour-body-in-expulsion-hearing

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:19 AM

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

Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM

I see on the BBC News website that yet another catholic priest has been imprisoned for abusing a young boy.

Are Christians over-represented in these cases???

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:33 AM

"Sadiq Khan joined those condemning the decision not to expel Ken Livingstone from Labour and said there is no place for him in the party because his views were "anti-Semitic".
The Mayor of London said Labour has to "do more" after Mr Livingstone was handed a further year-long suspension, rather than expulsion, over his comments about Hitler and Zionism."
Khan, "And if we are going to be zero-tolerant towards racism, Ken Livingstone has got to go."

"More than 100 Labour MPs have signed an open letter stating the sanction imposed on Mr Livingstone was a "betrayal" of Labour values. 
The hard-hitting letter states: "We stand united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism." "

"Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said she was "shocked" at the leniency of the sanction and told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The Jewish community are really upset, and quite rightly so."

Rayner, "I want to see the sanction to be zero tolerance(for anti-Semitism), and if that means that he is excluded from the party then that should be it."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-calls-for-ken-livingstone-to-be-ousted-from-labour-over-antisemitic-views-a3509091.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:42 AM

"Mr Corbyn, a longstanding ally of the former London mayor, said: "Ken Livingstone's comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community.
"Labour's independently elected National Constitutional Committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years.
"It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action."

"Labour deputy leader Tom Watson said it was "incomprehensible" Mr Livingstone had not been expelled, while former leader Ed Miliband said he was "appalled" at the lack of remorse being shown.
Mr Watson said the ex-London mayor's behaviour "discredits the party I love... I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress. This shames us all, and I'm deeply saddened by it."
Shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, who led an inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism in Labour, said she was "horrified" by the way Mr Livingstone had behaved"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39499640

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:02 AM

""Labour deputy leader Tom Watson"
Who is a prove dishonest politician, an opponent of BDS, an opponent of Corbyn and chairman of Labour's Friends of Israel
An unbiased opinion, if ever I saw one!!!
Opinions from an in-fighting party group are not worth a fart in a thuderstorm if they are not backed with facts
Certainly the opinions of a pair of raving racist idiots like you pair of Laurel and Hardys who refuse to respond to given facts yet continue to scrabble around for meaningless quotes are worth even less
You choose to put up a load of non Jewish opinions in opposition to stated Jewish support for Livingstone - I reckon that confirms your antisemitism based on your own arguments - but we didn't need confirmation
Fuck unqualifies opinions of self-interested politicians - including crooks pKeith - where are your actual examples of Labour Party members denigrating the Jewish People?
You have yet to produce a single one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:03 AM

I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party as long as Corbyn ("our friends Hamas and Hezbollah") is leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:53 AM

"I can't see someone like Livingstone being expelled from the party"
And I can't see anybody in their right mind believing somebody guilty of anything unless the accusations are substanbtiated
People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable Bobad - that is your contribution to the welfare of the Jewish peole
Hope you are proud
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:18 AM

People liek you have made the definition of antisemitism unworkable

Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 09:30 AM

"Only deemed unworkable by those who are guilty of it."
A getout for those who blame the Jewish people for the Crimes of Israel Bobad
You have never at any time been able to produce a single person who has attacked the Jewish people, yet you do constantly yourself for calling those who criticise Israel "Jew haters
You are making atrocities carried out by israel "Jewish" - you are by definition antisemitic
You are the leading antisemitism on this forum - accept that title with pride
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:31 AM

Just been listening to some very moving interviews with Israeli soldiers on a programme on Israel around Easter on Irish radio
One described methods of torture they are now told to use on detainees, such as DRYING OUT
He said many young soldiersare protesting at the methods they are told to use and are being put on report for doing so.
He described how farmers had to travel miles to get through checkpoints to get to their land on the other side of the wall

He told how soldiers close checkpoints when it takes their fancy and how one elderly farmer with his you7ng grandson passed out from the intense heat while waiting for the gate to be reopened - he sto soldiers danced in fromt of them as a n effort ton humiliate them while a third filmed them on hos mobile phone.
He ended his statement with obvious difficulty by saying, "in a few days time the world is honouring the man who died on the cross just a few miles from here - what kind of honouring is that?"
A "self-hating Jew", no doubt!
Great human beings eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 10:42 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:02 AM

I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. These murderers are celebrated as heroes and given a lifelong stipend that rivals what teachers earn which tells us a lot about where their values lie. In 2016 $137.8 million, about 10% of their annual budget when to rewarding the murderers of Jews. Nice to know that your government's aid monies are being used in this way, isn't it?

Great human beings eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 11:57 AM

"I've just been reading about how "Palestinians" are rewarded by their government for murdering Jews. "
Go count the number and compare them - p
Go count the land that has been stolen
Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians
One lot of killing does not wipe out another and only an inhuman little shit woulf claim otherwise.
Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal
You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people
Wear your badge with pride
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 12:38 PM

What kind of scum defend the actions ooof soldiers as just described?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 01:32 PM

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

Justifying anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic Jim.

Is he a friend of Israel?

Or Diane Abbott?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

"Another interesting fact in the programme I listened to was that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal
You are an antisemic fascist to take the word of a government rather than that of the Jewish people" - Jim

Care to elucidate Jim and give us some details about this programme where "The Voice of the Jewish People" came out with these pronouncements? Who is "The Voice of the Jewish People"? And how was he or she elected to the position?

I do know that all members of the Israeli Government are elected by the electorate of Israel (Mostly made up of "Jewish People" Jim), and that those elections are held regularly which is more than can be said for the other inhabitants of the former mandated territory of Palestine (I think they last had an election about 12 years ago).

How many Egyptians have the Israelis killed in the last 38 years Jim?
How many Jordanians have the Israelis killed in the last 23 years Jim?

In both cases Jim the answer is none - the reason for that is they stopped trying to kill Israelis, they also stopped threatening the state of Israel, so Israel no longer had to fight them.

Now if your pal Jeremy Corbyn's pals in Hamas and Hezbollah tried the same approach then the people of Palestine might find their general lot in life improving - it won't happen of course as the "leaders" of the "Palestinian people" are not interested in any peace in which a state of Israel exists. As long as Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israelis, Israelis will exercise their right to defend themselves. The fact that the Israelis are more effective than their attackers does not mean that they must exercise more restraint - there is no equivalence when you are fighting for your very existence - Or should they all move to the US mid-West Shaw? Oh but wait a minute to suggest such a thing would be to deny Israel's right to exist and that is anti-Semitic. I know somebody who made that suggestion Shaw and so do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 03:44 PM

Well 8 hours have now elapsed since I posted about a catholic priest had been jailed for abusing a young boy.

Not one of the people who attempt to castigate the travelling community or the Asian community for perceived ills has deemed to respond.

Quelle surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:26 PM

Perhaps Raggy if you'd like to explain the basis for comparison it might help. You won't do that because you know you are doing a "Gnome" and comparing apples to oranges. Castigating Travellers and the Asian community??

So Raggy how many young boys have been abused in the UK since say 2004?
How many have been abused by Catholic Priests?
Does the "brand" of the religion have any significance?
Population of the UK is some 65 million, how many of them describe themselves as Christian? How many of them are Roman Catholic?
How many have been abused by others who could not be described as Priests, Roman Catholics, or Christians of any other denomination?

You see for you to make your statement you'd have to have all that information at your fingertips.

Now for the life of me I know nobody from any other section, or group in the UK that I can recall kept dozens, possibly hundreds, of people in inhumane and degrading conditions and exploited them working them like slaves for periods of up to a quarter of a century and milking them for every penny that could be squeezed out of them. Can YOU?

Same goes for the gang grooming, rape and sexual trafficking of vulnerable under-aged girls. In 12 cities in England the common denominator that linked the members of these gangs was what Raggy? Don't be shy in responding, influential members of their own communities felt compelled to commented on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 04:49 PM

Go count the land that has been stolen

No land has been stolen - that is a typical anti-Semitic trope.

Count the number of days Israel has blockaded Palestinians

Gaza is under a legal blockade against the importation, by their terrorist government of weaponry whose aim is to kill Israeli civilians. You will note that when Israel gifted Gaza to the "Palestinians" no blockade was in effect, it was established in response to missiles being launched against civilians by the terrorist government Hamas. No missiles = no blockade, it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 07:59 PM

So we're agreed then, Keith 'n' Teribus. No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 17 - 08:40 PM

No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

Right, they were suspended from the party, made to recant and apologize, reprimanded and vilified all because they were not guilty of anti-Semitism right Shaw, just like those Nazis who were only aiding the Jews in their project to relocate them to their ancestral homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 03:14 AM

OH JOY

Now just dying to hear "the cultural reason" why the good people of Oxford have to pay for clearing this mess up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM

Steve,
So we're agreed then, Keith 'n' Teribus. No-one in Labour has been "found guilty" of antisemitism.

No!
Shah was.
Livingstone's anti-Semitism is what "brought the Labour Party into disrepute."
Then there are the dozens of suspensions.
No other party has these problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 04:04 AM

So no condemnation of the individual in this case or a condemnation of the case I mentioned a few weeks back.

No surprise really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 04:26 AM

"OH JOY "
You people really are something else
You bust a gut demanding that we adhere to a law on antisemitism that has been invented by politicians to protect a terrorist state, yet on the other hand mount your own racist attacks on communities that don't suit your own bigoted tastes "rape implanted Muslims", "brainwashed Irish children", "slave-owning Travellers" - and now the oldest one in the book FLY-TIPPING.
For crying out loud have you no imagination beyond dredging the scummy bum-wipe press for racial smears?
It seems to happen every time another of your claims goes down in flames.
Fly- tipping in Britain is a common practice both by Travellers and the settle community in Britain - there are literally hundreds of shady London businesses which offer to dispose of your unwanted rubbish, take it away and illegally dump it.
A few were run by Travellers when the law allowed them to stop for a few weeks before moving them on but there are few left around to do that now - that is the case in most big cities - Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester
Travellers are highlighted because they are an easy target.
We had dealings for a time with a Travellers organisation in Wordsworth who had a solicitor working on their behalf (voluntarily)
Locals had complained about the rubbish that accumulated around the site and it was found that the bulk of it (old furniture and fridges mainly) had been dumped by locals who had taken the opportunity to dupm their unwanted rubbish on the Travellers site
The incident was fully covered and exposed by the local press, thanks to an enlightened editor.
Travellers accumulate rubbish naturally, as we all do, because many local firms refuse to handle it as they handle settled rubbish.
Waste disposal is a massive HUMAN problem - not a Travellers one.
NOT A TRAVELLER IN SIGHT
"SOME BLAME TRAVELLERS" SCAPEGOATING
And you racist scumbags try to lay the law down on Ansisemitism - what are you on!!!
Keith
Neither Livingstone or Shah were guilty of Antisemitism - neither attacked the Jewish people and no definition other than attacks on Jews is valid (as Eric Pickles pointed out)
Livingstone may have been insensitive and stupid when he reminded us of the historical facts surrounding THE ZIONISTS - NOT THE JEWISH PEOPLE and the Nazis, but that is not being antisemitic.
Einstein made the same points, groups like 'THE REAL TORAH' have it as part of their policy....
Many other Jews have taking it far further by suggesting that Zionism not only co-operated with the Nazis, (some say, to save Jewish lives, a did the Catholic Church in Italy), but are echoing Nazi policies in their behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Shah may have been stupid - but again, she did not attack the Jews.
She took a suggestion made by Jewish intellectual, Norman Finklestein and offered it as a solution to the current deadlock
The bum-wipe press where fully aware of this when they claimed she invented the solution - they even used Finklestein's map to smear Shah.
AS hard as you try, you will never make a case until you produce attacks on Jews - Israel isn't The Jewish People, Zionism is a political philosophy - it isn't The Jewish People.
It seems your "serious problem of antisemitism within the Labourt Party has narrowed down to two doubtfuls out of - how many members?
Yep - as serious as that!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:31 AM

My questions remain unanswered. A lot of fudging and a lot of skirting around, as expected.

Now, Teribus. Antisemitism crimes in this country are covered by the Public Order Act 1986. There is no new law based on your sacred definition. The government has formally adopted that definition. It has not "become law." Doubtless it will be used to determine whether an offence has been committed under the Act. Doubtless there will be few or no cases relating to criticism of Israel. Why not? Because the definition is unworkable. It has been adopted as a sop to pro-Israel pressure groups in order to keep them quiet at last. I remind you again that the definition is virtually identical to the 2005 EUMC definition that was dismissed as unworkable. That definition was drawn up by a body, soon to become defunct, that was "advised" almost exclusively by pro-Israel lobby groups. One fine day you'll see that the definition is actually injurious to Jewish people. If you discriminate against or attack Jews because they are Jewish, you are being antisemitic. Easy to define, easy to apply, a good definition for protecting Jewish people. The rest is politics and you know where that gets us.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

The interesting thing, Steve, is that the figures are available here. You know, that survey that Teribus seems to think I am using to compare apples and oranges. It makes for interesting reading in that there is a right wing neo-nazi theme seems to run though those prosecuted. It does not say whether any of them were Labour supporters but it becomes apparent that it is unlikely :-)

Not sure if we will get any response from Keith today with it being Good Friday and all that. Shouldn't good Christians use it as a day of reflection and, maybe, abstinence from usual activities? We are going for the traditional catholic food for tea and having salmon. To show that I am no longer frightened of the priest I am having Polish ham sandwiches for lunch though. Oh, and I am working as well. Nice to be in when the office and roads are so quiet. Will get time off at a more convenient time.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 05:54 AM

"OH JOY "
Forgot to thank you
Your sickening glee when you thought you had find yet another stick to beat yet another ethnic group confirms what a small minded goose-stepper you are - you and your "Christian" mate
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:01 AM

It was soon to become defunct by 2005 is what I meant. It's long gone. Lunch at a very nice farm shop cafe at Boscastle for us then a stroll by the sea. The downside is that I'm paying for eight of us.😳

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:14 AM

Jim,
Neither Livingstone or Shah were guilty of Antisemitism

McDonnell says they both are.
Why would he lie?

Almost half of Labour's 229 MPs have signed an open letter warning that the decision not to expel Mr Livingstone over his comments is a "betrayal" of the party's values.
A total of 107 MPs, along with 48 Labour peers, put their name to the Jewish Labour Movement statement criticising the move to only hand Mr Livingstone an additional one-year suspension.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said in one TV interview(Andrew Marr)that the former London Mayor should be thrown out for offensive comments he made about Hitler and Zionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:15 AM

{{{Shudder}}}

You shouldn't say things like 'paying for eight of us' to a trainee Yorkshireman!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM

McDonnell says they both are. says they both are."
Is he the old McDonnel who had a farm - orwas that MacDonald
Both are equally qualified or otherwise to pronounce on what is or is not "antisemitism"
Quote away Keith - until you substantiate that either of the accused attacked the Jewish people, and util you are able to provide evidence you have no case - not even if Corbyn had wrung his hands and said they were guilty
Fortunately he is far too decent an individual to scapegoat innocent people "for the good of the party" (as you accused the Jewish members of doing)
Boris Johnson apologised for his racist remarks yet you pair of right-wing tossers said he wasn't a racist
It appears you believe the politicians you want to and reject those that don't suit your right-wing agenda.
Conviction without evidence based on accusation alone is lynch-law, not justice.
Go look up the legal necessities of proving somebody guilty - then you can go to your arm-raising rallies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 07:27 AM

"Emily Thornberry "
For the record, Emily Thornberry is a right wing opponent of Corbyn- a snob who tweeted photographs of a 'white van' parked in the street as part of her Rochester election campaign, a liar who claimed her relatives to have held military positions they did not hold and a politician found to be totally ignorant of contemporary politics.
She was accused of being a hypocrite for her behaviour on private education for her own children.
She joins your growing list of reliable (not) accusers - somebody you would not buy a used car from
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:32 AM

Talking of good Friday this tickled my fancy :-)

Jesus died to give us two bank holidays

Also brought to mind an odd situation back before licensing hours relaxation. We used to do the pace egg play every good Friday at the Lancaster Maritime Festival. Pubs used to shut about 2 I think coz it was Sunday hours. Then, lo and behold, through the blessed lord's intervention they relaxed pub hours on a Sunday as an experiment:-) It must have worked because they then extended it to all days. Well, it either worked or they never saw us suffering from the effects of the Pusser's Rum promotion.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:14 AM

Jim,
For the record, Emily Thornberry is a...

So what?
She is a prominent party member and knows much more about what is going on than you do.
Likewise the Deputy Leader, elected by the membership, whose views and knowledge you also try to dismiss.
Likewise Mcdonnell, who did not have a farm but who is Corbyn's closest ally and Shadow Chancellor.

They and all those Labour MPs think Livingstone should be expelled for supporting anti-Semitism expressed by Shah.
I think that their views are worth reporting on this.
Your dismissing of them shows how isolated and out of touch you all are.
Likewise your denial of anti-Semitism that is clear to all them and everyone else.
Who can you quote?(ha ha ha)
Just each other!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:18 AM

Ever seen my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Dave, I enjoyed your piece mocking the core beliefs of Christianity.
Ha ha ha.

Perhaps you have some similar pieces on other religions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:28 AM

She is a prominent party member and knows much more about what is going on than you do.
Sh i a right-winger trying to rid the Labour Party of Corbyn and is using unfounded claims of antisemitism - pretty much the same as the rest of them are.
Career politicians, even the ones who tend to share his views, regard him as a liability - a threat to their careers.
AS far as the members is concerned, Corbyn is probably the most popular leader it has had in my lifetime - under his leadership. Labour has beme one of the largest in Europe - you never get that from the shits you keep putting up.
Whatever the Parliamentary careerists say publicly (the only views that reach the media) the membership is saying something different.
When will you get in into your extremist head that, until you substantiate these accusations they have no basis as far as antisemitism goes
I suspect you know this as you refuse to respond to the facts surrounding what both Livingstone and Shah said - neither attacked the Jews, both were reactions to Israel's war crimes and atrocities.   
As you are an enthusiastic supporter of these, you are never likely to face that fact head on.
Please, stop being boring and stop putting up opinions of people who have a vested interest in getting rid of Corbyn
ONE MORE TIME - NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS - NO CASE TO ANSWER - BOTH COMMON SENSE AND NATURAL JUSTICE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:34 AM

Ken Livingstone's suspension issue has nothing to do with Naz Shah. It's about his saying that Hitler supported Zionism. Go and have a lie down, Keith. When you get up, tell us what YOU think either of them said that was antisemitic.

The lunch was lovely. Good value and fabulous grub. The fiscal damage was less than anticipated!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM

I have some for every occasion but I suspect that if I tried any other religion you would accuse me of antisomethingophobia. Nice try but no prize.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM

Jim,
ONE MORE TIME - NO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS - NO CASE TO ANSWER

The Labour Party disagrees with you.
Can you find anyone who does Jim, or are you isolated and alone in your views?

Steve,
Ken Livingstone's suspension issue has nothing to do with Naz Shah. It's about his saying that Hitler supported Zionism.

Nonsense Steve. Discussing Hitler's antics in the early thirties would hardly bring the Party into disrepute!

As McDonnell said, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you(Livingstone) 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."

Dave, so singling out Christianity for ridicule on the most sombre day in the Christian calendar is OK, but not any other faith or you might be accused of prejudice!
That is milder persecution than Christians endure in say the Middle East and Pakistan, but persecution none the less.

A different morality indeed Dave.
Yours is shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:10 PM

"The Labour Party disagrees with you."!
When did they tell you that Keith
Please explain in as many words as ncessary how anybosyt can be found guilty of anything withhout it being specified
Otherwise, please stop being so mindbogglingly stupid
Apart from a lynching, can you please give a case where somebody has been ben punished for something unspecified (outside the pages of Franz Kafka)
You must be totally insane to make such a stupid suggestion
You have been given what is happening in The Labour Party - over and over again
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge it makes it obvious that you have failed to "win" something, you have now resorted to your habit of lying
You have the arguments - where are yours
Stupid, stupid little obsessed man
No charges - no case to answer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:12 PM

But this is what you said:

"They and all those Labour MPs think Livingstone should be expelled for supporting anti-Semitism expressed by Shah."

They think Livingstone should be expelled for his comments about Hitler and Zionism, not Naz Shah's remark. What's the matter with you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:28 PM

I am sure someone said that the people who are affected should be able to say what is offensive or not. I am officially a Christian so I should be able to say what is offensive to Christians or not. What I said was not offensive. I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith.

WTF are you on about Keith?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:02 PM

From Haaretz April 11th
Let's see if our two fanatics have the balls to respond to it
Jim Carroll

In Defense of Ken Livingstone
By FSOI Vice-Chair Jonathan Rosenhead.
Republished from Haaretz.
Ken Livingstone, enfant terrible of the British political left, was arraigned before a Labour Party tribunal last week for things he said in a radio interview in April last year. (He has been suspended from membership since that time.) The outcome of the hearing has produced a mighty uproar.
The affair has its origins in a surge of accusations of anti-Semitism against prominent Labour Party members in the early months of 2016. One casualty had been Labour MP Naz Shah, who at the time of the 2014 conflict in Gaza had tweeted extensively and not wisely. (She was then not yet an MP.) Livingstone rode in to her defense, and it was an interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio that led to the case against him.
One of Shah's re-tweets had been a quote from Martin Luther King: "Remember that everything that Hitler did in Germany was legal." Feltz asked Livingstone a question about Hitler, seemingly to pick up this point, but he misunderstood the thrust and responded with some views on Hitler's interactions with European Zionist leaders in the 1930s, which he had written about decades earlier. This response turned out to be a gratuitous own goal, with escalating demands that he be expelled –which peaked last week when the Labour Party tribunal failed to sack him, but 'only' extended his suspension.
It is a shame that Colin Shindler gave such a one-dimensional account of the Jewish community component of this furor. Shindler paints a picture of a British Jewish population all but united behind Israel and against Livingstone, except for a few "marginal" and "highly unrepresentative" types. Like me.
I need to declare an interest. Although my previous direct contact with Livingstone was limited to a conversation while walking down two flights of stairs after a public meeting some years ago, I was one of five Jewish Labour Party members who gave evidence for the defense at Ken's hearing a week ago. We testified in particular on the allegation that his remarks had been anti-Semitic. The oldest of us had got out of Germany as a child in 1937, with his parents lucky enough to make it two years later. My own back story is less dramatic. I grew up in a thoroughly Zionist family in Liverpool. I spent the summer of 1956 in Israel on the Jewish Agency's Summer Institute project. I celebrated without any doubts Israel's military victories from 1948 through to 1967. Many others have since then, like me, been forced by Israel's continuing treatment of the Palestinians to rethink and regret our former position.
It is true as Shindler says that the great majority of us (around 90 percent, according to a reputable 2015 survey) express some degree of attachment to Israel. Indeed I do myself. However what he glosses over is that more than 40 percent of respondents, when specifically asked, declined to describe themselves as Zionists. Those who self-describe as Zionist have actually decreased from 72 percent to 59 percent in just five years. My own subjective experience is that of those who still do identify as Zionists a substantial proportion express criticisms, some verging on disillusion, with the actual policies of successive Israeli governments.
It gets worse. What the survey calls "dovishness" increases the younger you are, and the more education you have. Among under-30s, the percentage who say they would support sanctions against Israel if they thought it would get Israel to negotiate for real with the Palestinians rises to 41%.
It is not only Shindler who paints a picture of a united Jewish community "up in arms" because the "anti-Semite" Livingstone has not been expelled. On the day of his non-expulsion Haaretz reported the Jewish Leadership Council as blasting the Labour Party. An article by Daniella Peled quoted incandescent condemnation by the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Holocaust Education Trust. The UK's Jewish communal organizations have indeed been jumping up and down and making a lot of noise, in unison. But this apparent unanimity is a construct.
These organizations effectively blanket out any coverage of this dissident, alternative Jewish perspective. It is as if the Jewish organizations which take a skeptical or downright critical view of Israel – Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Free Speech on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices, Jewish Socialist Group and others – do not exist.
So what did Livingstone say that makes his expulsion so compulsive? He said, in his now infamous radio interview, that when Hitler became chancellor "his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism…" This Transfer (Ha'avarah) Agreement is, perhaps unfortunately, solidly based in fact – and many more people probably know that now than did before Livingstone's gratuitous history lesson. The agreement was based on a unity of purpose (but not of motivation) between the Nazi regime and a range of European Zionist organizations, which lasted through to 1937. The Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and Zionists wanted Jews to settle Palestine. As a quid pro quo for the arrangement Zionists called off the economic boycott of Germany and gave other assistance to the faltering German economy.
How could this statement of facts be seen as anti-Semitic? One neat solution found by Livingstone's enemies was to misquote it, either as "Hitler and the Zionists collaborated"; or even as "Hitler was a Zionist." The host on a BBC radio program swore blind to me that Livingstone had said just that.
Quoting historical facts can hardly be anti-Semitic, which is presumably why the Labour Party didn't even charge him with it. The allegation was, rather, of "bringing the Party into disrepute" – a nicely vague and plausible accusation, for which he received a two-year suspension. No penalty was imposed on all those MPs and other Labour worthies from the right of the Party who seemingly thought they might be able to get rid of one of the Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's most effective supporters. They brought the party into disrepute but, of course, were not charged.
There are multiple casualties in all this. Foremost there is the truth, bent and misused for partisan purposes. Second, the Labour Party, brought even lower in popular esteem by the continuing disloyal attempts to unseat a leader with a radical mandate – and one who supports the Palestinian cause. Third, the fight against anti-Semitism. Until recently there was no doubt about what the concept meant, and that it was anathema to all but an unsavory fringe. Individuals and organizations who think that it can be raised into both a shield against criticisms of Israel, and a weapon for taking back control of the Labour Party, are trying to politicize the notion of anti-Semitism. Only the real anti-Semites will benefit from the resulting confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:23 PM

Great piece of writing, Jim. Wish I'd seen that before.



Wait for it.......

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM

Dave, I said nothing about how offensive your posts were to Christians, just that they single out Christianity for ridicule and mockery.
I do find your explanation that it is OK to attack Christians but not those of other faiths because of what you might be accused of offensive.
Different morality Dave.

Jim,
"The Labour Party disagrees with you."!
When did they tell you that Keith

I have posted reams of quotes from senior and prominent Labour people saying it.
You say they are all wrong or lying.
I think you are.

Steve,
They think Livingstone should be expelled for his comments about Hitler and Zionism, not Naz Shah's remark.

No.
McDonnell said, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you(Livingstone) deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM

I am sure that the last 2 sentences are what some have been saying throughout this whole sorry thread but others have said that no one else thinks that. Ah well, I guess if no one thinks that I must have just not read it. Or maybe Jonathan Rosenhead is either not alive, not a qualified historian or not published in mainstream bookshops. Or Free Speech on Israel is a radical organisation that no one should take notice of. No need to wait, Steve. I think the predictions are accurate

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

"A different morality indeed Dave, Yours is shit"

Sounds like personal abuse to me. Coming from someone who has frequently objected to such comments it is a little bigoted to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

Keith
I knew you would totally disregard what a Jew said about Livingstone and go for self serving politicians
You are a fascist with more than a a hint of antisemitism thrown in
Are politicians lying - do bears shit in the woods?
You have had an outline of why these events are taking place - the political in-fighting, the opposition to BDS - all you have got are the unqualified accusations of self-serving politicians.
If they are not lying they are not making sense - you do not accuse anybody of anything without specifying what you are accusing them of - natural justice - common sense...... whatever you care to call it.
Please respond to what the article says - it is specific, it makes historical points from a Jewish point of view, and, as far as I'm concerned, it makes sense.
Ignore it and you again expose yourself as a fanatical right-wing hater of everything decent (Sabra Shatila and your persistent racism against Muslims, Irish "brainwashed" children and "slave-owning Travellers" has done that more than efficiently) - your choice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

I do find your explanation that it is OK to attack Christians but not those of other faiths because of what you might be accused of offensive.

That was not the explanation and well you know it. It was that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

Different language

I also said "I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith." but you chose to reinterpret that in your own way.

Different planet.

At least you are saying different morality rather than shit or no morality. Was that the lessom you learned on good Friday?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:56 AM

Correction Dave, he stated "Different morality indeed Dave, YOURS IS SHIT"

Bigoted, pure and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

No, fair's fair Raggy - He did drop the 'yours is shit' on 15 Apr 17 at 03:46 AM. I guess being reminded that Jesus said 'forgive them for they know not what they are doing' may have helped

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:17 AM

I can guarantee that the professor would not be as forgiving.

I take umbrage that he objects to personal abuse when aimed at himself but he is quite capable of abusing others and seems to believe it is OK if he does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

Had Ken Livingstone simply said that he didn't agree with the way Naz Shah was treated, there would be no problem. Had he simply said that he thought she'd said nothing antisemitic, the same - no problem. Read my lips, Keith. He is in trouble because he said that Hitler supported Zionism. It's very silly when you twist things around for absolutely no good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 07:48 AM

Jim,
I knew you would totally disregard what a Jew said about Livingstone and go for self serving politicians

Jim, this is about the Labour Party, and only concerns the Labour Party.
Others may have many and various opinions, but only opinions from within the Labour Party actually matter.

Dave,
That was not the explanation and well you know it. It was that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

I would defend any faith from such an attack.
Why do you only and always attack Christianity?
Because you feel safe from getting something nasty in return.
That is you morality, and I think it is shit.

Rag, I do not do gratuitous personal abuse.
I refer to specific behaviour and describe the morality that allows it to be shit.
Do you approve of that behaviour?

Steve,
Read my lips, Keith.

No. Your opinion is worth nothing against those of people like McDonnell, Abbott, Watson, Khan, and Thornberry on Labour Party matters.
Read their lips.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 08:02 AM

"Rag, I do not do gratuitous personal abuse. I refer to specific behaviour and describe the morality that allows it to be shit"


No. You described Dave's morality as shit. Can you not even understand your own posts.


"A different morality indeed Dave, Yours is shit"


No mention of behaviour at all.

Ergo gratuitous personal abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:02 AM

Livingstone isn't newly arrived at his anti-Semitism. In 1982, when he was at the time the editor of a Workers Revolutionary Party front paper, published a cartoon of Menachem Begin giving a straight armed salute, wearing an SS uniform and standing on a pile of Palestinian skulls. In 1984, as leader of the Greater London Council, he accused the Board of Deputies of British Jews of being 'dominated by reactionaries and neo-fascists'. In 1984, as mayor of London, he welcomed Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall. Qaradawi is a defender of Palestinian suicide bombing as a 'martyrdom operation' and 'evidence of God's justice', and has issued a fatwa permitting the killing of pregnant Israeli women. Livingstone called him 'a progressive figure'. In 2005, he accused a Jewish reporter of being "like a German war criminal". He has presented programs for the Iranian state propaganda channel Press TV and has said that Jews were rich and so were not likely to vote Labour anyway. He has spent half a century pushing the anti-Semitic canard that equates Zionism with Nazism. Yet unbelievably, in this day and age, there are still some who rise to his defense. Disgusting!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:27 AM

Rag,
You described Dave's morality as shit.

Yes, and I specified exactly what I thought was shit.

He said he would not attack other faiths because he might get something nasty in return, but attacked Christians because that is safe.
That is shit morality, and saying that is not vacuous name calling or gratuitous personal abuse.
I identified the behaviour I hold to be shit.

He also claimed that he thought I would only criticise him for attacking other faiths but not my own.
Does anyone believe that?

He also identified me by name as someone holding Good Friday special and sacred, and later on that Good Friday launched his ridiculing and mocking attack on my faith.
He made it personal.
The morality behind that is shit too Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:34 AM

Jim, from your paste-in,
"The affair has its origins in a surge of accusations(from within Labour) of anti-Semitism against prominent Labour Party members in the early months of 2016"

Not made up by anyone here then!

"Livingstone rode in to her(Shah's) defense, and it was an interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio that led to the case against him."

So it was not about Hitler's antics in the 30s, it was about defending Shah's anti-Semitism.

I am off for a couple of days.
Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:37 AM

Absolute bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 03:55 AM

Why do you only and always attack Christianity?...

...He said he would not attack other faiths because he might get something nasty in return, but attacked Christians because that is safe.

That is not what I said though is it Keith? Do you not just read what I put? Have you already made your mind up what I said anyway regardless of what is actualy there in black and white? Why do you keep misrepresenting people?

I did not attack other faiths either did I? Can you point to such an attack? I may have linked a disrespectful article and asked if anyone had seen my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross. Are those attacks? I doubt anyone else would say so. Even you said they were funny, remember? But if they were attacks you have still misrepresented why I did not say similar about other faiths. Maybe you need to see important things in bold type nowadays so I will try that.

I said that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

I also said "I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith." but you chose to reinterpret that in your own way.

Different language
Different morality
Different planet

How you have the brass neck to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret like that at your most holy time of year and then say my morality is shit is beyond me. But everyone can see what you do so it will be no surprise to anyone.

Enjoy your fantasies, whatever they may be.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 04:06 AM

A couple of little holes in your thread here Keith. I suspect most had noticed but just in case you had forgotten...

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Dave, I enjoyed your piece mocking the core beliefs of Christianity.
Ha ha ha.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM

Dave, so singling out Christianity for ridicule on the most sombre day in the Christian calendar is OK, but not any other faith or you might be accused of prejudice!
That is milder persecution than Christians endure in say the Middle East and Pakistan, but persecution none the less.

A different morality indeed Dave.
Yours is shit.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM

Dave, I said nothing about how offensive your posts were to Christians, just that they single out Christianity for ridicule and mockery.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 07:48 AM

I would defend any faith from such an attack.

So, do you find the article I linked offensive or funny? Do you think it is persecution or humour? In a nutshell, it is make your fucking mind up time.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 04:33 AM

"Jim, this is about the Labour Party, and only concerns the Labour Party."
That is thee most stupid attempt to back out of an argument you have ever attempted
You and your mate have made it about Israel, about Travellers........ about whatever ethnic group or race you fancied to target, and now you have been presented with facts that you are totally incapably of addressing, you now attempt your old "thread drift" ploy
Unbelievable
B.D.S. has been a part of this from day one -
The accusations started within weeks of Corbyn's announcement of support for the boycott and were revived each time one of the "Friends of Israel" was called to headquarters to receive further orders
You dismiss Jews as having no voice in "antisemitism" - how antisemitic are you going to get - must add that one to the list !!!
If it was only a case for "the Labour party" then you really do have no case
The attacks come from the Parliamentary Labour Party, who make up only a minutel fragment of the membership - Corbyn has a significant majority of support of the Labour Party members - they are the ones who count, not the self serving professionals who look on politics as a career move.
Answer the article if your contempt for the views of Jewish people is not too great to allow you to do so.
Ther is no significant problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party and there never will be until it is enumerated and fully described.
Your contemptuous view of the Jewish members of Labour who "chose not to go to the press when Corbyin did nothing, because of their love for the Party", confirms what an appalling bigot you really are
Is there no ethnic or cultural group safe from your hatred and contempt?
Have a nice Easter and be nice to your God now - d'you hear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 05:37 AM

Another interesting and factual account to be ignored by some. This time by Leon Rosselson so at home in both political threads and on a folk music forum.

Is Zionism Antisemitic?

Enjoy

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 05:57 AM

That should get some knickers twisted

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 06:19 AM

Brilliant work, Dave. Let's see these cabal bigots pick the bones out of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 07:23 AM

MANY JEWS HAVE NO DOUBT IT IS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 10:30 AM

I think that the most important of those bullet points at the start of Jim's linked article is the one that states that Zionism endangers all Jews worldwide. If only some of the clowns who post here could see it.

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

Dave, your posts were amusing but offensive to most Christians.
We Christians have no right not to be offended, but I noted that, as ever, you always and only mock and ridicule Christianity.

When I questioned that you said you were afraid of me criticising you for mocking faiths other than mine.
I do not believe that, but I do think you fear criticism.
That is the morality I find shitty.
OK Dave?

Jim, this discussion is about Labour and what goes on within Labour.
No-one knows more about that than Labour people.
Quoting others is irrelevant, which is why I have resisted posting the views of members of rival parties, though there have been plenty.

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

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

As the subject of recism and bigotry seems to be OK with Keith, with his permission, of course, perhaps this articcle from todat's Irish Times might be acceptable
What do people think - does it pass the censor's blue pencil, or aren't there enough "decent countries in the U.N.?
Jim Carroll

Middle East
ISRAEL IMPOSES 'APARTHEID REGIME' ON PALESTINIANS, SAYS UN
A UN agency published a report yesterday accusing Israel of imposing an "apartheid regime" of racial discrimination on the Palestinian people, and said it was the first time a UN body had clearly made the charge


You forgot to report this Jim,
The secretary-general of the United Nations (UN) on Friday rejected a report, authored by UN officials, that accused Israel of establishing an "apartheid regime," prompting the resignation of the head of the agency that authored it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 02:42 PM

"The secretary-general of the United Nations (UN) on Friday rejected a report"
Desn't make it untrue Keith - it's has been a commonly accepts belief for several years no
You were quick enough to reject what the United Nations said when they condemned Israel - even described them as "antisemitic"
Now you are just picking out the bits that you like
Life's not like that
Still insisting we can't suggest what a Jew has said, antisemite that you are.
"No-one knows more about that than Labour people."
Yup - and the majority of the party back Corbyn - you choose the views of a tiny minority who have an interest in getting rid of him
That seems fair!!!!!!!!!!!
No charges, no case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 02:47 PM

When I questioned that you said you were afraid of me criticising you for mocking faiths other than mine.
I do not believe that, but I do think you fear criticism.
That is the morality I find shitty.
OK Dave?

No, it is not OK at all. I did not say anything like that and well you know it! I said if I said anything offensive to anyone else you would use that for your own agenda. That is not fear, it is common sense. Yes, it would be shitty if I feared criticism but again, that is blatantly untrue. If I feared criticism, why the hell would I post anything on here? Whether you believe that or not is entirely up to you just as it is entirely up to me to believe that you are deluded.

OK Keith?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

Professor, you have every right to be offended. I have every right not to give a ****.

I am sick and tired of religious zealots of whatever persuasion telling me what I can or cannot do because it offends their religion.

If you cannot deal with that, tough shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 04:41 PM

Views on "Zionism" would carry a great deal more weight were they made by messrs Rosselson, Lerner & Lendman if they were all Israeli citizens. Alas they are not, which is why I suppose that they can feel free to espouse the views they do knowing full well residing as they do in England, California and Chicago respectively none of them or their families will pick up the tab should things go pear shaped.

Rosselson's, "There are no 57 varieties of Zionism" is patently as wrong minded as is him applying what the thinking of the founders and early pioneers of the movement thought over a hundred years ago to the situation and circumstances of today, over the course of time things evolve and things change.

Lerner & Lendman can chatter on about "Apartheid Walls", etc, but they were not in the line of fire of "Palestinian" snipers nor would they have been likely to find themselves in close proximity to suicide bombers that the existence of the Wall prevented. Also liked their idea about negotiating with the "Palestinians" - Only snag there of course is that for any negotiations to take place there have to be at least two parties willing to negotiate and that rules out Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority, perhaps Lerner & Lendman could clue us in on who the Israelis should then negotiate with and what they would negotiate as no-one on the Palestinian side has the slightest interest in any form of a "Two-State Solution" - their aim is the destruction of the internationally recognised sovereign State of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish population, Lerner & Lendman wouldn't of course be affected.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 06:21 PM

What a pile of utter nonsense. As you say, things evolve. Your mindset never does. The suggestion that the only people who should have a say on Zionism are the people who live in Israel is about as stupid as saying that only the people who live in North Korea should be allowed an opinion on their regime's policies. Idiotic, and I think you know it. And if you really think that the wall was all about Palestinian snipers, you really are in cloud cuckoo land. You're a sucker for that good old Israeli propaganda, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 07:10 PM

And apropos of negotiations, every negotation attempt has been a charade and in every case for one reason: the Israeli regime never has to give an inch. No matter what their depredations, no matter what their outrages are in Lebanon and Gaza, no matter how much they discriminate against non-Jews in Israel. They have the unconditional backing, in terms of trade and military aid, of the United States. They know that, no matter how much land they steal for settlements, no matter how much they repress a million and a half people in Gaza, no matter how many cluster bomblets they leave scattered over Lebanon, no matter how many children they kill in Gaza, the US will never do more than give them a little slap on the wrist. Hardly grounds for reasonable negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:04 AM

"The suggestion that the only people who should have a say on Zionism are the people who live in Israel is about as stupid as saying that only the people who live in North Korea should be allowed an opinion on their regime's policies." - Shaw

Did I say that? Is the Government of Israel "Zionist"? Last time I looked it wasn't, "The Zionist Union" was the main opposition party. Political parties in the Knesset describe them selves as being "Secular", "Zionist Labour", "Religious Zionist", "Liberal Zionist", Arab - One thing is certain Shaw, there are many and varied types of "Zionist" organisations in Israel and throughout the world - Not just one as Leon Rosselson stated. Tell me Shaw how many political parties are there represented in Gaza or in the Palestine Authority? Do they actually have an elected opposition, or did they all fly off the roofs of high-rises ten years ago? Tell me do you think the "Palestinians" will ever be given another chance to vote in an election? If so when do you think it might happen? Within our lifetime?

And yes Shaw the only people who do get a direct say in the policies of individual governments throughout the world are the electorates of those countries. As stated in my post Rosselson, Lerner and Lendman have got some bloody nerve advocating and dictating, from the safety of their homes in the UK and in the USA, policies that the Government of Israel should adopt that could well result in the mass slaughter of it's Jewish population.

The Wall and the drop in Israeli deaths can be easily checked Shaw:

"The barrier was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was defended by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it. The Israeli government argues in defence of the wall, that between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, while from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out

Excuse me please, teacher Sir, but that is a reduction to 1/6th of the pre-wall number of incidents. Or if you would prefer it a reduction from an average of two suicide bombings a month over a three year period to one suicide bombing every three months over a similar three year period. Seems like one hell of an improvement and pretty effective to me Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:06 AM

Jim,
Yup - and the majority of the party back Corbyn - you choose the views of a tiny minority who have an interest in getting rid of him

Not true. I have posted a wide range of views including McDonell and the entire NEC.

Who do you quote?
A non-Party member who lives in Israel!!

Dave,
OK Keith?

No.
It is a FACT that you always and only single out Christianity for mocking, ridicule and attack.
That is shitty morality. It makes you a bigot.

The reason you give, that I might use any attack on other faiths against you, but not attacks on mine, is not believable.
If you are being dishonest, that is also shitty morality.

Your Good Friday posts were made after you identified me by name as one to whom Good Friday is special and sacred.
That makes it personal, and even more shitty.
Despicable Dave.

Steve,
the Israeli regime never has to give an inch.

They have given hundreds of miles in exchange for peace.
Half of Egypt and all of Gaza.

However, giving back Gaza brought them nothing but more indiscriminate attacks on their people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:16 AM

"They have given hundreds of miles in exchange for peace.
Half of Egypt and all of Gaza."

Oh the irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:18 AM

"Not true. I have posted a wide range of views including McDonell and the entire NEC."
All from politicians the majority of arguably the largest political Party in Europe backs Corbyn
Your handful of career politicians - all linked to ether the anti BDS campaign of the in-fighting that is happening represent nobody but their own professional or political interests.
These are the facts of Israel's Apartheid - ANOTHER JEW, I'M AFRAID
"Views on "Zionism" would carry a great deal more weight were they made by messrs Rosselson, Lerner & Lendman if they were all Israeli citizens."
What??????????
That statement is antisemitic in the extreme - depriving the world-wide Jewish people a voice on a political movement that represents the world's Jews and putting it in the hands of an extremist right wing country in the process of ethnically cleansing not Jews
Absolutely insane - fascism at its worst
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 05:09 AM

This forum stands in danger of becoming extremely antisemitic – not only are the opinions of Jews on anti-Semitism, unimportant compared to those of a handful of British politicians, bu now we have a proposal that only Israelis are the only ones allowed to express a view on Zionism
Come back Adolf – all is forgiven
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 05:42 AM

He didn't say there was only one type of Zionist organisation. He simply said that Zionism is Zionism. There isn't only one type of left-wing or right-wing organisation either. As for your little litany of party names and what they mean, you forgot to add that the Labour Party is the organisation that supports women in maternity wards.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 05:42 AM

It is a FACT that you always and only single out Christianity for mocking, ridicule and attack.
That is shitty morality. It makes you a bigot.

No it doesn't. I have already said umpteen times that I was brought up as Christian and can say what is offensive and what is not in that particular branch of fantasy. I know little about other religions so I am not qualified to say what is offensive or not in those.

Enough of this nonsense anyway. You have chosen to make personal attacks on me so I am sure you will excuse me if I do the same. When you least expect it...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:02 AM

As for your doughty defence of the apartheid wall, Teribus, try reading beyond the first few lines of the wiki entry if you can muster the energy. Even the Israelis acknowledge that the wall is by no means the main factor behind the drop in suicide bombings. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh, Teribus? The wall has annexed (aka stolen) thousands of acres of the West Bank, including stranding tens of thousands of Palestinians, divided farms, almost cut off villages, split families and made travelling extremely difficult for Palestinians. Your "security barrier" is my enforced future state boundary. It has been condemned nem con by the UN General Assembly and by the International Court of Justice. Not even Keith's decent democracies will stand up for it, will they?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:21 AM

I do not make personal attacks Dave, I am responding to your attack on Christianity that you chose to make personal to me.

It is perfectly possible for an ignorant person to attack any faith if they choose to.
You choose to always and only attack Christians.
That makes you a bigot Dave, and that is not a gratuitous personal attack, but a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:26 AM

"Not true. I have posted a wide range of views including McDonell and the entire NEC."
All from politicians the majority of arguably the largest political Party in Europe backs Corbyn

I am able to quote prominent Labour people on this issue, you are not.

You have to resort people who are not only not members, but do not even live in this country!

This issue is about the British Labour Party, and I quote people who actually know what is going on inside.
You can't!
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:46 AM

Stop being an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:51 AM

If an attack is aimed at a person rather than an idea it is a personal attack, Keith. The clue is in the name. What I did was neither an attack nor personal. I linked an article written by someone else that made fun of a Christian tradition and asked if anyone had seem my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross. Neither of those can be be deemed as attacks on any person by anyone but the terminally deranged. You chose to respond to that by saying I was a bigot and my morality was shit. Which do you think is closest to the definition of personal attack?

Here - have a few more.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 07:14 AM

"You lose."
A regression to imbecility again Keith
Until you specify what you are accusing Labour of, you are not even in the race
You are now a declared antisemite - another one bites the dust and its' not even one o'clock yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 07:48 AM

no matter how much land they steal for settlements,

Ah yes the well worn anti-Semitic trope from the well worn anti-Semite.

Let me remind you again Shaw:

There are no illegal settlements - unless of course one assumes that Jews should not own property or build in those areas because they are Jews. Every current Jewish "settlement" is on land owned by Jews before 1948 or purchased after 1967. Settlements that tried to set up on land that was not Jewish owned have been dismantled. We continue to hear the term "illegal", but "legal and illegal" has to be more that political desires and interests. It has to refer to law. And, frankly, law established during the illegal Jordanian occupation of the area in which Jewish property was confiscated and retitled, and current PA regulations that ban sales or ownership of property by Jews is not valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 08:04 AM

"There are no illegal settlements -"
According to international law there are
The Israeli regime had driven out
According to the United Nations there were 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees driven out of their rightful home - ethnic cleansing on a massive scale
Totally unprecedented
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 09:06 AM

The "West Bank" is not, nor was it ever, "Palestinian" land. Under the principle of international law, uti possidetis juris, it is a part of Israel. Israel has been trying to relinquish it to the Arabs but has been rebuffed by their "leaders" every time it has made an offer. If the Arabs keep insisting that all of Israel is "Palestinian" land they will never have a state of their own in the "West Bank".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 09:32 AM

""Palestinian" land. Under the principle of international law, uti possidetis juris, it is a part of Israel. Israel"
Under the principle of natural law and justice, it belongs to those who own it - the U.N. has reiterated that fact and declared the settlements illegal
The present situation is due to the hasty botch-up carried out by departing Britain, and has no standing whatever.
To drive the Palestinians out of land they have occupied for many centuries would be simple ethnic cleansing, which is what is happening - go look how the world viewed former Yugoslavia if you want a modern example
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 10:54 AM

Oh God. Don't argue with either of him. He's not worth it, and neither is he.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 10:59 AM

It's not for either of his benefits Steve
It's just cathartic to get if off your chest publicly
We should be grateful to these twots for the opportunity they give us
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:33 AM

Dave,
Neither of those can be be deemed as attacks on any person by anyone but the terminally deranged

No-one deemed it a personal attack, but your link did not just "make fun of a Christian tradition."
It ridiculed and mocked the core beliefs of all Christians.
Your impression of Jesus on a rubber cross might be hilarious, but I am sure you would not talk of it to your late father, or any Christian you would not wish to offend.

These were attacks on the Christian faith made worse because you made them on Good Friday, and made personal to me by your naming of me on that morning.

Christians have no right not to be offended, but what I object to is your singling out of that one faith for all your "humour."
That is what makes you a bigot.

I also object to your ludicrous claim that my "agenda" makes you do it, and not just that you know Christians will not bite back.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:41 AM

Jim,
Until you specify what you are accusing Labour of,

Nothing. I just report what prominent Labour people and most MPs complain of.

You are now a declared anti-Semite

Please quote my declaration to that effect, liar.

Re occupied land.
Turkey illegally occupies half of Cypress and took it not repelling an invasion in a war of defence, but in an unprovoked act of aggression.

Why no criticism or calls for a boycott Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:42 AM

Give it a f**king rest will you. Frankly if Dave has offended you bloody well done to him.

You are always bleating about being victimised or picked on, poor little you, all the big boys are getting at you.

It's about time you grew up and starting behaving like a adult.

Of course if you really don't like it you could drop out of this forum or threads where you get rattled ............. and I know exactly the response that idea will get.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:56 AM

It all just goes completely over your head Rag dear.
You understand nothing.
Be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:58 AM

Christ, he's rewriting the history of Cyprus now. He's even rewriting its name. Is there no end to his delusions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 11:59 AM

Oh I understand enough to realise your craving for attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 12:31 PM

Nothing. I just report what prominent Labour people and most MPs
Sit Keith - they have alluded to antisemitism - neither you nor they have specified what the charges are and until they do they are unfounded
"prominent Labour"
Back to your "real historians" do you never lkearn
You'd never heard of them until you7 sought them out and only then you took them because they were saying the right things
The majority of the Labour party supports Corbyn, but, as with the Jews, their opinion doesn't count
"Please quote my declaration to that effect, liar."
By declarinbg publicly that Jews have no opinion regarding antisemitism you aare a declarede antisemite
By declaring that Jews hid the nature of Labour antisemitism your 'Jewish pact of silence' makes yo an antisemite
IUf you are going to deny this again, pl;ease tell us why the Jewih MPs didn't go public as they easily could have
Failure to answer willleve you with your original statemnent
"Cypress"
I assume you mean Cyprus, nobody occupies trees any more.
I have beEn part of opposition to Turkish fascism since I moved to London in the sixties,
I signed petitions calling for a bycott, I took part in marches in North London and I attended protest meetins
A working man can only do so much
Nobody is attempting to ethnically cleanse Cyprus
I remind you that you presented Turkey as one of those "decent States" who was defending Israel by staying silent - I had to point out its fascist nature to you
Where were you while we were demonstrating - I didn't seem you on any of the marches!!
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 12:36 PM

Errr, Keith, my Dad found it hilarious. He was strong enough in his faith to laugh such things off. How dare you even presume to suggest that you can even guess what my late Father did or did not like. That really IS a shitty thing to do.

Different Morality

The link I provided may well have offended your sensibilities. To be honest, I could not give a toss. In your own words take it take it up with the writers of the article. It was sweet FA to do with me.

Different Language

Neither Christians or any other fantasists have any different rights to anyone else on the planet. Including you, except of course you are on a

Different Planet.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 02:07 PM

While the anti-Israel camp refuses to apply that principle to Jews, it also vaunts the anti-Zionist (read: anti-Semitic) Jew. The only time those on the far left deign Jewish opinions on anti-Semitism and Israel valid are when those opinions gel with their hatred of Israel.

These Jews are trump cards in the anti-Israel arsenal. Their value as people in the eyes of the BDS camp is derived from their identity, but they are not just tokens; they are weapons. We have made it clear that Israel and Jews are inseparable, and perversely, it is this connection that has lent credence to their anti-Semitic ramblings.

Anti-Zionist Jews are, of course, entitled to hold these opinions. Just as white supremacists are entitled to believe that the white race is superior to all others — and they certainly feel entitled. But that does not mean that those opinions are valid or acceptable; they are morally reprehensible, and so is the type of anti-Semitism enabled by and emanating from this fringe group of Jews.

The anti-Semitism of anti-Zionist Jews

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 02:30 PM

"While the anti-Israel camp refuses to apply that principle to Jews, "#
Who does here and will you provide an example of our doing so?
As you don't go in for that sort of thing I don't expect a reply
It is your mate who is describing a Jewish statement on The Labour Party as 'irrelevant'
Is that not "antisemitic" - if not, why?
Don't expect a response to that one either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 02:46 PM

"According to the United Nations there were 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees driven out of their rightful home - ethnic cleansing on a massive scale" - Jim

Unprecedented!!!! Utterly unbelievable more like Jim as the non-Jewish population of the Mandate of Palestine in 1948 was only around 1.358 million, care to explain how 5.15 million could have been driven out of their homes? Were they attached by bungie cords and kept springing back?

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

"Utterly unbelievable more like Jom as the non-Jewish population of the Mandate of Palestine"
Are you really incapable of responding to a question without being abusive?
Nice to know I've got under your skin - again
SUGGEST YOU TRY HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:21 PM

Thanks for the link Jim - agrees with me that 5.19 million Palestinians were NOT driven from their homes in 1948.

Tell me Jim why did the Egyptians invade, occupy and steal Palestinian land in 1948 and then shut Palestinians up in refugee camps on what had been Palestinian land?

Tell me Jim why did the Jordanians do exactly the same thing to Palestinians in the West Bank?

I take it that you do acknowledge that in April 1948 both Gaza and the West Bank were part of the mandated territory of Palestine don't you? So how did they come to be under Egyptian and Jordanian control from 1948 until 1967?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 04:34 AM

Jim,
The majority of the Labour party supports Corbyn

Why don't you quote them then Jim?
Because they are people like Steve who have no knowledge and who no-one has ever heard of.

I quote McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor and Corbyn's closest ally, Abbott who is very close to Corbyn, Watson the Deputy Leader, and prominent people like Khan and Thornberry on Labour Party matters.

Who knows more about what is going on inside Labour?
Not you and Steve!!

Nobody is attempting to ethnically cleanse Cyprus

Many of Greek Christian heritage were forced off their land.
You have never criticised Turkey over their illegal occupation on here, or called for a boycott.

Dave,

The link I provided may well have offended your sensibilities. To be honest, I could not give a toss.

I do not expect anyone to and I never objected to being offended.
I do object to you carelessly and gratuitously causing offence on this forum. It had nothing to do with anything being discussed.
I do object to your always and only criticising Christianity and never any other faith.
I do object to your claiming it is my fault that you do it.
I do object to being singled out by name as someone likely to be offended by what you were about to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 04:39 AM

Well known Mudcat liar Jim,


By declarinbg publicly that Jews have no opinion regarding antisemitism you aare a declarede anti-Semite

If that is not just another Jim lie, quote me declaring it.

It is your mate who is describing a Jewish statement on The Labour Party as 'irrelevant'

If that is not just another Jim lie, quote me.

I did say that Labour insiders are more likely to know what is going on than people who do not even live in this country and have no connection with the British Labour Party.
I did not specify Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

Keith

I do not expect anyone to and I never objected to being offended.
Why bring it up then?

I do object to you carelessly and gratuitously causing offence on this forum. It had nothing to do with anything being discussed.
Take that up with the moderation team

I do object to your always and only criticising Christianity and never any other faith.
I did not criticise anything. I linked an article and did not even complete a joke. When I do criticise religion you will note that I always refer to any branch of fantasy.

I do object to your claiming it is my fault that you do it.
Your fault that I do what? Your paranoia is showing

I do object to being singled out by name as someone likely to be offended by what you were about to post.
Where did I do that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 06:23 AM

"Well known Mudcat liar Jim,"
Didn't you just claim you don't go in for personal insults
Seems like it's Well known Mudcat liar Keith
"Why don't you quote them then Jim?"
How can you quote a majority Keith - they have vor=ted him into office twice.
You can quote who you like but until you produce solid evidence of antisemitism it remains an unsubstantiated quote from someone who either sees Corbyn as a liability or from those who have been been prompted by Israel to get rid of the leader who threatens to introduce BDS
If you can't produce actual evidence, the rest is agenda-driven rhetoric
I ASKED WHY THE JEWISH MPS DIDN'T GO PUBLIC WITH THEIR ACCUSATIONS - YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER, SO YOUR ORIGINAL ONE - THAT THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO A PACT OF SILENCE FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY STANDS
"If that is not just another Jim lie, quote me."
Are you actually denying that you refuse to respond to a Jewish writer because he has nothing worth saying on British antisemitism(sic)?
At least give this statement a little gap before you start denying having made it
"Thanks for the link Jim - agrees with me that 5.19 million Palestinians
were NOT driven from their homes in 1948."
Who on earth said they were - I gave you the number of refugees - that is the current number
"According to the United Nations there were 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees driven out of their rightful home - ethnic cleansing on a massive scale"
You really need to get whoever reads these things for you to be more accurate
Piss off, you arrogantly stupid little man
What a pair of ludicrous tossers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 08:37 AM

Dave,
I do not expect anyone to and I never objected to being offended.
Why bring it up then?

Because of all the actual objections to your behaviour.

I do object to your always and only criticising Christianity and never any other faith.
I did not criticise anything. I linked an article and did not even complete a joke.

yes. Criticise was the wrong word.
I should have said, "I do object to your always and only mocking and ridiculing Christians and never any other faith."

I do object to your claiming it is my fault that you do it.
Your fault that I do what? Your paranoia is showing

No. You claimed you did not attack other faiths because of my "agenda."

I do object to being singled out by name as someone likely to be offended by what you were about to post.
Where did I do that?

You identified me by name on Good Friday as one to whom it is a special day, and then posted your mocking attacks.

Jim, you can not quote me because you were lying.
It is also a lie about any "PACT OF SILENCE."
If it was not a lie then quote me.
They were not silent.
They reported their complaints about anti-Semitism to the Party leadership to deal with, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.
No "pact of silence." You made that up.

I am away now.
Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 08:48 AM

There were no objections but yours as far as I can see, Keith, but I am aware of what is currently happening in your life so we shall leave it there until you are fully recovered.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 11:51 AM

"They reported their complaints about anti-Semitism to the Party leadership to deal with, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny."
Not what I asked Keith - I asked why they didn't go public
Why didn't they - there was nothing stopping them
You are lying when you deny having said what you said
You've denied it before and I've put it up twice
Why bother putting it up yet again - you'll only ask for proof as if hadn't already done it
I'm really to old to be coping with childishly dishonest behaviour like yours
You want it again - I'll put it up next to your "implant to rape" evidence
Enough really is enough with your dishonesty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 03:33 PM

Can you believe it? Soldiers stopped two Arab nurses who are cancer patients coming into Israel from Gaza for treatment and insisted on searching their possessions...

oh wait...

Today's news brief: "Forces find explosives among the medical equipment of two Arab nurses allowed into Israel for cancer treatment."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 05:44 PM

"I am away now."

With the fairies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 17 - 07:45 PM

"Can you believe it?"
Can you believe it
The Israeli Government facilitated the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed refugees, found themselves not guilty but indicted an Israeli General as being responsible for allowing it to take place, then, as a punishment, they elected him Prime Minister.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 17 - 03:21 AM

Just found this article from the London School of Economics. Not exactly a hotbed of left wing activity -

Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn

Interesting read. I have read it all. Didn't take long but if you don't have the time or inclination, the forward is a good synopsis.

Also wanted to resurrect the thread to let Steve know that I have an excellent crop of dandelions this year :--)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Apr 17 - 04:52 AM

Dandelion wine is very good. Haven't made it for years but I always used half a pint of grape juice concentrate and a couple of pounds of sugar. You don't have to get rid of all the green bits but definitely no stalks. Give the flowers a good bit of agitation before maceratiing in order to expel the beetle larvae! It doesn't make you pee the bed.

Dandelions reproduce sexually (flowers, pollen, seeds, etc.) but they do it all by themselves without meiotic cell division, so we end up with hundreds of microspecies in which the individuals are genetically identical instead of one big species with lots of genetic variation. It's called apomixis. Brambles do it too. A similar thing happens with aphids and with workers in some species of social insects. Pesky greenfly and worker wasps are good examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:26 AM

There is a lesson for Steve, Jim and the Labour Party in the David Ward story.

He has been deemed as "unfit to represent" the Lib Dem Party because,
"In 2013, Ward was criticised for accusing "the Jews" in Israel of "inflicting atrocities on Palestinians... on a daily basis".

Farron has said Ward's comments have been "deeply offensive, wrong and antisemitic"."

And,
"In 2013, Mr Ward posted a tweet calling Israel an "apartheid state" and saying that "Zionists" were "losing the battle".
Mr Ward refused to apologise at the time and had the party whip withdrawn. "

To tell such lies in the absence of any evidence and in the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary suggests a racial motive.

No informed intelligent person believes all that lying propaganda.
No decent democracy accuses Israel of those things.
Disseminating such lies makes you unfit to be a member of a decent democratic party.

It is time for you two to question your beliefs, and the motivation of your political mentors in feeding you such lies over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:29 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39723144

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tim-farron-under-pressure-over-lib-dem-candidate-accused-of-anti-semitism_uk_590093dce4b0af6d718a224a

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:49 AM

Y A W N ............ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 04:54 AM

I think it is possibly a mistake to contrast the way Labour and LibDem dealt with similar issues of a comment by a member. You have to add a healthy dose of cynicism: we are in an election period now and LibDem do not want that to be a story - they are well aware of the distraction that "gay sex" row is having on their party and they have no wish to start another hare running. The action may well have far morw to do with campaign management than the rights and wrongs of the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 05:25 AM

DMcG,
"In 2013, Mr Ward posted a tweet calling Israel an "apartheid state" and saying that "Zionists" were "losing the battle".
Mr Ward refused to apologise at the time and had the party whip withdrawn. "

That was not an election year.
The story has re-emerged because he applied to be a candidate again.
He is considered "unfit."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 05:46 AM

Your link Keith
"Mr Ward, who planned to stand in Bradford East - the seat he lost in the last election - caused controversy in 2013 when he accused "the Jews" of atrocities against Palestinians."
The Israelis do that every time they accuse critics of their policies - Ward is saying no more than they - or you, have been doing since day one.
Criticising Israel is not antisemitic and the fact that (as Erc Pickles noted) there is no agreed definition of the term, we have to go by what we know
Is John Clark's antisemitic tweet being treated with the same seriousness by the Tories as labout has accusations against their party, or are the Tories
a special case - as with their Islamophobia
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 06:27 AM

"He is considered "unfit."
Most politicians are "i=unfit"
He was not considered antisemitic, which is more to the point - and he was not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 02:28 PM

There is a lesson for Steve, Jim.....

Teaching pigs to fly comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 07:06 PM

You happy with that response to your post, Keith? He's your ally. Answer plainly and clearly or just bugger off, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Apr 17 - 10:00 PM

Answer plainly and clearly or just bugger off, please.

Lol.....what a dork!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:01 AM

Jim, the lesson for you is that your beliefs make you unfit to belong to any party, except on the far-Right or hard-Left.

You defend Ward.
The Lib Dems dumped him for saying what you say all the time.

Steve, you give me orders like a bad teacher to a pupil.
No-one has to obey you any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:08 AM

Jim,
(as Erc Pickles noted) there is no agreed definition of the term,

"Among his proudest achievements as envoy was the key role he played in Britain becoming the first country to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism – for which he has been thanked by Theresa May."
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/without-our-jewish-community-we-would-be-a-lesser-nation/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:39 AM

Y A W N .......... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:40 AM

That's what I said Keith - he did it on behalf of Britain because there is no longer an accepted definition of the term
Your additional post confirms that the "antisemitism" being claimed is largely criticiam of Israeli policy - which is not antisemitism, by any accepted definition.
Blaming the Jews for israeli policy is one of the listed examples of all definitions, but you and Israel do this every time you accuse those critics of antisemitism.
The Israeli Justice minister bacame an antisemite when she declared all criticism to be antisemitic
You have nothing more to say on this
You have never specified or quantified wat the "serious" antisemitism is in the Labour Party and until somebody does, it doesn't exist other than as an accusation.
Yo refuse to tell us why the Jewish members of parliament didn't go to the press, or why the Israelis themselves haven't brought specific chargesagainst Labout (they have no "love of the Party")
Your antisemitic claim that the Parliamentary Jewish members kept silent for the sake of the party still stands.
If you did not mean this - why have they not made public all this "serious antisemitism" you are claiming
If you don't tall people what a "criminal" has done, he has done nothing illegal.
Common sense and simple justice - in my world anyway
"You defend Ward."
No I don't - I don't know anythiung about Ward
Nothing he was accused of was antisemitic - it is not antisemitic to accuse Israel of crimes and Israel makes the the Jewish people resposible for its own actions
They can't have a denition which says that is antisemitic and make such an accusation.
You are not fir to belong to any Party other than the BNP or the neow moribund Ukip
Do not accuse me of
being antisemitic - that is antisemitic by definition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 04:02 AM

You are an evasive hypocrite, Keith. Do you agree with bobad's post in which he was backing you up? Or would you rather shake him off?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:44 AM

Whattsa matter Shaw, can't read?

No-one has to obey you any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 10:38 AM

Jim,
That's what I said Keith - he did it on behalf of Britain because there is no longer an accepted definition of the term

Now there is.

which is not antisemitism, by any accepted definition

All our mainstream parties are in agreement that his comments were anti-Semitic, as are yours.

The Israeli Justice minister bacame an antisemite when she declared all criticism to be anti-Semitic

No-one has declared any such nonsense.

You have never specified or quantified wat the "serious" antisemitism is in the Labour Party and until somebody does, it doesn't exist other than as an accusation.

It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it.

Your antisemitic claim that the Parliamentary Jewish members kept silent for the sake of the party still stands.

It never stood because I never claimed it.

If you did not mean this - why have they not made public all this "serious antisemitism" you are claiming

They have. They made their complaints about the party to the leadership, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.

If you don't tall people what a "criminal" has done, he has done nothing illegal.

I disagree. Lots of criminals are never identified.

"You defend Ward."
No I don't - I don't know anythiung about Ward

You deny his anti-Semitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 11:16 AM

Indy, 5 days ago,
"Jeremy Corbyn did little to counter reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and got "angry" when his team told him he needed to improve relations with the Jewish community, a former adviser has claimed.
Harry Fletcher told told The Sunday Times that the Labour leader was "uneasy" about being interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle and "did not understand" why he needed to be completely transparent about his past dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Mr Fletcher served leader's communications and strategy adviser and was part of Mr Corbyn's four-strong leadership campaign team in the summer of 2015."

""What angered me most was their inability to understand why they're perceived as anti-Semitic," wrote Mr Fletcher, who worked alongside Mr Corbyn, his son, Sebastien, and now shadow Chancellor John McDonnell."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-anti-semitism-harry-fletcher-sunday-times-op-ed-a7697456.html

As I said,
"It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM

Y A W N ............ Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 06:21 PM

Don't you worry, boobs, I can read all right, and my memory lets me down less often than yours does for you. When Keith made his rather vacuous comment about our being taught a lesson via Ward, you responded, in full support of Keith, by suggesting that it would be like teaching pigs to fly. Well let me just remind you of something, fellah. A few months ago you were pretending that you had to have a second identity as an anonymous guest in order that name-calling would be avoided, that we would be forced to address the issue, not attack the man. So what's happened? We're now equated with pigs, now that you're feeling bitter that you've been deprived of your dishonest anonymity and that your cover was blown (and don't lie again, please - I have chapter and verse from the mods that that's exactly what you did). Nice. Precisely what the Islamophobes do to Muslims. Compare them with pigs. Where did you learn that from I wonder? And what happened to addressing the issue, not attacking the man? And Keith, if you're reading this through your blue-tinted specs, let me ask you once again. No evasion this time. Do you support bobad's response to your post or not? If you evade the question again, well we know exactly where you stand, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 06:49 PM

Anyway, bugger all that ordure. We took me mum for a drive round a bit of the Yorkshire Dales today. We started off with a spot of lunch at the Lister Arms in Malham. Very nice too. Then we drove up to Malham Tarn taking in the view of Malham Cove, then back to the road to Arncliffe. Beautiful village. As Mother hadn't yet run out of energy (she's 88 and very infirm), we drove up Littondale to the top end, just short of Halton Gill, then left over the top road past Penyghent back down to Stainforth and Settle then home. Very leisurely was my pace. Would've loved to get out and walk to the cove, and/or to Gordale Scar and Janet's Foss, but today was all about giving Mother a nice ride out. The air was clear, the scenery was gorgeous and it was just a pity that the sun went in during the afternoon. Damned fine day. Go, Jezza!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:38 PM

Give it up Shaw, you've become an obsessive, boring and repetitive old fool. I don't think too many here really give two farts about your silly little imperatives, your yapping poodles excepted of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:50 PM

Have another vat of lukewarm flat Budweiser, why don't you. Your bitterness is showing through! You're sussed! 🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 07:56 PM

Weak, Shaw, very weak. Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 08:05 PM

""It is not believable that they are all lying about it."
Nealy as unbelievable as continuin to acuse somebody something without specifying what they are supposed to have done
Can you describe the nature of this antisemitism Keith and who is involved?
POINT THE POINT - WHY HAVEN'T THE VICTIMS COME FORWARD AND DESCRIBED WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM?,   
You didnt link to the Independent article,
John MacDonnell is a wannabe Labour Leader who wishes Corbyn to be removed so he can lead the party.
The article makes th point that there is no specific evidence to show that there is a problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party
""Jeremy believes he is completely non-discriminatory. He would never be hostile to someone in the street. But he is, if you like, anti-Semitic along the institutionalised lines of the Metropolitan police in the 1990s, when they messed up the Stephen Lawrence ……
A Labour Party spokesman directed The Independent to a tweet, which read: "Sunday times attack story from a source from another political party who never worked for Labour. Not serious."
He did not give a concrete example that Mr Corbyn was anti-Semitic. But instead he stressed that was the perception of Mr Corbyn and the party, and Mr Fletcher criticised his reaction to those reports."
Do this as long as you want - until you bring specified charges they are no more than accusations by interested politicians.
No evidence, no case
Now - why didn't the Jewish members go public - why the Jewish Members of aprliament - after a year, we still have no idea what this antisemitism is - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Apr 17 - 08:43 PM

Have another vat of lukewarm flat Budweiser.....

Nah, I'm enjoying sipping a delightful little Chardonnay from Chile's Casablanca Valley. It is resplendent of grapefruit and lemon with a hint of tropical pineapple and just a faint touch of oak. It married quite nicely with my supper of peppered, grilled Atlantic salmon with a side of blanched rapini sauteed in extra virgin olive oil from Lebanon with homegrown organic garlic and chili flakes accompanied by a salad of butter/Boston/bibb lettuce with a homemade vinaigrette of extra virgin olive oil, white balsamic vinegar, Dijon mustard, homegrown organic garlic, a soupçon of anchovy paste and a few macerated capers from the Middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 04:29 AM

Ye gods, that explains everything. Chilean Chardonnay is so passé. Teenybopper booze. Buttery, cloying juice. The fact that it's oaked (usually achieved by dangling oak staves or wood chips in it, not by oak-ageing in barrels) betrays its lack of balance in the first place. Next time try a nice, crisp, minerally Falanghina del Beneventano from Campania. No oak required. That'll wash away the horrid taste of that Chardonnay and sweeten your mood.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

Jim,
Nealy as unbelievable as continuin to acuse somebody something without specifying what they are supposed to have done

I never have.
I just report what is coming out of Labour.
It is not believable that they are all lying about it.
It is believable that you are wrong about it.

You didnt link to the Independent article,

Yes I did, but too long for a Mudcat clickie.

Now - why didn't the Jewish members go public

They made their complaints about the party to the party leadership, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.

after a year, we still have no idea what this antisemitism is

We know exactly what Livingstone, Shah and others have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:09 AM

Wasn't me Miss, it was some big boys...............



Isn't it about time you grew up and behaved like an adult.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 06:38 AM

"I never have."
Back to lying again Keith
You started this lynching and have pursued from day one
Yu refuse to respond to the facts of the obvious agendas - B.D. S. and the fight within the labour party - you dredge up combatants from both, you quote them out of context of whare they stand - both as opponents of Corbyn and supporters of the Israeli regime, you refuse to tell us why, after a year, we still do not know what this "antisemistism" is and who is involved, you make up antisemitic reasons why the Jewish mambers don't go public, you deny having done so - now you won't explain why they don't simply support their fallow Jews and explain what is happening
"£hey made their complaints about the party to the party leadership,"
See what I mean
WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM SIMPLY IGNORING THE LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP AND GOING TO THE PRESS - THEY WOULD HAVE A WILLING EAR THERE.
wHAT IS STOPPING THE ISRAELI REGIME FROM MAKING PUBLC THE EVENTS =- THEY HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORTERS WITHIN LABOUR - WHY THE BLANKET OF SILENCE?
The answer is simple
The "antisemitism in the Labout Party is no mare than opposition to the Isreali ergime - pure and simple
The Israeli regime has decared that to criticise its policies is antisemitic - that is what Labour is being accused of
You have kept this up for a year now and we are no nearer knowing any of these answwrs
WE do know what Livingstone and Shah said - neither attacked the Jewish People so neither were antisemitic - my point exactly
Shah borrowed the idea of a Jewish researcher as a solution for the Palestine problem and Livingstone quoted historical facts about Zionism - not the Jewish people
Even if they were, two members of the Labour party is not "a serious problem"
Not believeablt that politicians lie to gain political advantage - you live in Britain don't you - lying is part of the job description.
No sane human being accuses somebody and perisits in doing so, whithout carefully laying out what they are guilty of, and no "decent" democratic society would ever condemn the accused without having all the information at hand
To do so would be vigilante lynch-law - that is what you are proposing here
What has Labout done
You suggest I am extremist left (I am not)
You ignore the fact that the left has no recod of antisemitism
The left parties in Britain were formed by, among others, Jews who had fled the pogroms of Europe - the left of Europe Included revolutionary Jews like Trotsky - Lenin (and Stalin) condemned antisemitism as "evil"
On teh other hand - rightist, German Indusrtial Capitalism financed a regime that sent six million Jews to their deaths - antisemism is a rightist philosophy - one of your political group's pet projects.
Answer the points or you ahve no case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:18 AM

Chilean Chardonnay is so passé. Teenybopper booze.

A perfect selection then for I am young at heart and, unlike you, not a pretentious snob.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:55 AM

Should have nipped in for a brew, Steve - We are only half an hour from Malham.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM

It was all a bit of a bugger, Dave, and very last-minute. A two-car family entourage, brother, sister-in-law, her sister (all from New Zealand) plus me dad in one car, then me, Mrs Steve and me mum in my car. Met at the Lister and had a very tolerable lunch. Good old pub, though a bit too much oil in the beer batter. Then they went off up Gordale and we drove up t'other road to Malham Tarn, then over to Arncliffe, up to Litton then past me favourite mountain, Penyghent, down to Settle then 'ome. No getting out for a walk, all about taking 88-year-old mum for a nice ride. There'll be a next time, Dave, when I don't have quite so many people to keep happy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 06:08 PM

Pretentious, moi? I never buy wine that costs more than a fiver, preferably on special. Pretentious isn't the word. Discriminating is the one you're looking for. Chardonnay still wine is the drink of the ignoranti, rather like Liebfraumilch used to be in the 70s. Avoid NZ whites which are all over-priced and usually too cloying. Sauvignon blanc can be good, mainly from France, maybe the odd Chilean, but there are some real shitters around. Pinot grigio, yawn. A good steely Italian white from Vesuvio, or the exceptionally dependable Viña Sol from Torres, is my recommendation for decent budget white. Some nice Marsanne from the south of France too, sunshine in a glass. Leave the Chardonnay for the kids and the Essex girls. About your level, actually. Someone's got to drink it I suppose. Oaky whites? I puke in your general direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:24 AM

"me" what?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

Steve, wine appreciation is subjective.
Bobad's view is as valid as yours.
We see again the bully teacher trying to ridicule and humiliate the child who dares to challenge your orthodoxy.
Wine appreciation is not a science.

Jim,
"I never have."
Back to lying again Keith

If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!

you dredge up combatants from both,

The people I quote are not dredged up. They are all senior and prominent Labour people.

I quote McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor and Corbyn's closest ally, Abbott who is very close to Corbyn, Watson the Deputy Leader, and prominent people like Khan and Thornberry on Labour Party matters.

Who knows more about what is going on inside Labour?
Not you and Steve!!

Why don't you quote people who challenge those views?

Because they would all be people like Steve who have no knowledge and who no-one has ever heard of.

You ignore the fact that the left has no recod of anti-Semitism

Here is a book about it.
"Book of the day
The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism – review
Dave Rich's new history reveals the origins of Labour's recent antisemitic scandal in a wider leftwing revival of prejudice "
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/13/the-lefts-jewish-problem-corbyn-israel-and-antisemitism-dave-rich-review

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:58 AM

Y A W N .......... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:30 AM

Playing on the Internet I've found a fascinating site:

heritagemaps.ie

Should keep me amused for several hours and far more interesting than the tripe that is being spouted here by certain parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Steve Shaw - 29 Apr 17 - 05:31 PM - Only three in your car Shaw? No other members of your family wanted to be bored shitless by you then? Or was it your turn to transport t' whippet and t' pigeons?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

Ah yes. Good old Dave Rich again. Round and round and round we go. 💤💤💤

And Keith, tsk. I try to wean bobad away from his adolescent wine habits toward a more mature attitude to finding a good bottle, all in order to make him a more cheerful and balanced chap, and what happens? Well, I get it in the neck from YOU! And you're supposed to be his friend and ally! By the way, you never have said what you thought of his equating us with pigs, having previously lamented the fact that we, unlike him of course, attack the man, not the topic. Got anything to say about that, hmmm? He's your mate, after all, and he WAS supporting you when he said it! Or are you, on this fine Christian Sunday, Cain to his Abel? Have you told God that you're not bobad's keeper? Yeah, that should fix it! 😇

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:35 AM

Out of order, Teribus. Mind your own business. Do you wipe your bottom front to back, back to front or not at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 08:32 AM

"If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!"
You say you are not obsessed you are
You have persisted on accusing lanboourr of Antisemitism and you refuse top pproduce on single scarp of evidence - not one - that is lying
Accusations are lies if they are persitently unfornded
Where is your evidsence for Labour's antisemitism
Your "witnesses" fall into two categories
1   Those who have direct links with the anti-BDS campaign - I have given you those links over and over again - you refuse to acknowledge them
That is lying
2   Those who wish to get rid of Corbyn as leader
You refuse to acknowledge either - that is lying
I have requested tht you explain how you can find somebody guilty of something without specifying what they have done (natural justice)
You refuse to respond - lying again.
I have asked you over and over again to tell us why the Jewish members have not gone to the press - you respond by saying they went to Corbyn - not my question - that is lying
You stated originally that they did not do so because of their respect for the party, then denied having said it when it was pointed out how antisemitic that was (evn though I put it up twice and you compounded it by saying "I'm sure they love the party" as a reply.
Your whole case has been a barrage of obsessive lies
You will not tell us why the Jewish members did not go public - that compounds your lie.
You can quote who the hell you like, but until you produce the facts of what they are accused of you have no case and you will contiue to lie.
If your case is illogical - as it is - and that is pointed out to you - unless you respond with reasonable answers you are lying on speed.
You know as well as anybody here that natural justice demands that a case is proved with evidence NOT ACCUSATIONS
How can anybody defend themselves from undescribed accusations - what kind of kangaroo court justice to you carry around in your head?
Now - one more time.
why didn't the Jewish members who claim there is antisemitism specify what form it took?
Refusal to respond with confirm you are lying, will confirm you know you have no case and confirm that you stand by your original antisemitic statemen
Answer my question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 02:48 PM

Jim,
You have persisted on accusing lanboourr of Antisemitism

I have not. I have just repeated what senior, prominent Labour people say themselves.
People in a position to know the facts, unlike you and Steve.

Your "witnesses" fall into two categories

Really? What about your witnesses?
Sorry. You do not have any at all, right Jim.

Those who have direct links with the anti-BDS campaign

Israel is far from being the worst country in the world, so why single it out for a boycott?
Only an enemy of Israel would support that.
Most intelligent informed people do not, and certainly no decent democracy does. Only regimes that are really nasty places.
Your friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:18 PM

Answer the questions Keith otherwise you are compounding your lying
You are still pursuing this crusade despite the fact that there is no evidence
Kangaroo courtism in the extreme
"Israel is far from being the worst country in the world"
Can' think of another that is ethnically cleansing an entire people to create a monotheistic state
an't think of another State which has single-handedly created as many refugees as Israel has.
Can't think of another that has blockaded a people for ten years
Israel is a fascist State in a party of the world that is a time bomb
Can't think of another State that has consistently avoided being charged with war crimes bu U S vetos
Can't think of another terrorist state with nuclear weapons
Can't think of another state that has persistently invaded its third word neighbour with heavy artillery, missiles and chemical weapons
Can't think of anoter state which cold-bloo=dedly fascilitates the massacre of up to 3,500 unarmed refugees and then appointed the man forung to be responsible Prime minister
Britain and America sell arms to many states consistently committing war crimes and human rights abuses
It doesn't matter anyway - the fact that there are other States with a poor record doesn't alter what Israel is and what it is doig
It is a terrorist state
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:39 AM

Fortunately Jim - only in your mind. The rest of the civilised world knows better.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:15 AM

The civilised world said this:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:42 AM

"Fortunately Jom - only in your mind. The rest of the civilised world knows better."
The precision and erudition of your answer sweeps me off my feet
Bet you say that to all the girls
Is that really the best you can summon up?
Sorry - forgot who I was addressing - 'course it is!!
Didn't you know the United Nations was an antisemitic organisation Raggy?
That posting is four months old and ancient history - go wash your mouth out!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 02:48 AM

Sorry Jim, here's me thinking that the UN was a erudite body ....


.....I'll go and stand in the corner. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 03:46 AM

Raffytash. A view of the UN.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-takeover-of-the-united-nations/5303368

credibility is further stretched by the recent election of saudito the UN women's rights commission

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-

The original concept was good but it took a ride on a roller coaster to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:05 AM

Jim, as Teribus said, only enemies of Israel believe all that propaganda.

It is not a "fascist state" and not engaged [n "ethnic cleansing."
Just saying that got Ward dropped by the Lib Dems.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:11 AM

Rag, no-one here denies that the settlements are regarded as illegal by other countries, as in your link.

Decent countries however do not believe Israel to be guilty of any of those things in Jim's recent post.
Just saying them will get you suspended from any of our political parties, except the extreme Right or Left.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:15 AM

Iains, neither of the links worked, one said "sorry, something went wrong. Please try again in a couple of minutes" I did, and got the same message. The other read "Page not found"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:22 AM

Did you actually read the link professor, if so which part of "The Council called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction" do you not understand.

Which bit of "Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development. Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence" do you not understand.

Which bit of "The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders" do you not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:28 AM

"The original concept was good but it took a ride on a roller coaster to hell."
You take flaws in a complicated system to undermine an organistion of international States - you have attempted to do so with Humn Rights organisations Iaians
Your alternative appears to be that the only thing we have to rely on are the denials of the terrorist states
That would be a real "road to hell" in my opinion - no international laws, not war crimes commissions, ho overseeing of human rights.... nothing
The Israelis demanded the International Court of Justice be dismantled, when she was called to face her crimes following the last set of massacres of civilians in Gaza
Is that what you are suggesting - if not, what
We don't rely on pronouncements from any of these organisations for our information and understanding - we have world wide and largely neutral observers, witness statements and, certainly in the case of Gaza, a blow-by-blow view of what was happening, as it was happening - we saw the results nightly on our televisions, read it in the papers - and we have our own intelligence and moralities to judge the rights and wrongs of the situation.
Without the United Nations, Amnesty.... and all these other organisations, the world would be an extremely dangerous, shitty place for all of us.
Instead of attempting to undermine these organisations, why not just reply to what they are actually saying?
We know Israel to be a Terrorist State carrying our a programme of ethnic cleansing on an entire culture of people who have occupied the area for many centuries, god knows, there are enough Jews and Israelis who have said the same thing themselves.
You have an npleasant habit f denying apparent facts on the basis of the opinions of largely unknown and untrustworthy sources
One of your favourites, Global Research" is a site st up by a Russian billionaire - very reliable, I'm sure.
I'd rather trust Rupert Murdoch, shit that he is.
At least he employs teams of experts skilled in the trade of journalism
It's facts that carry the weight in these discussions, not random opinions that any moron can scoop up off the net.
For any opinion one person can scoop up making a case, there are hundreds out there to contradict it
"The facts man, the facts, as Joe Friday used to say
C'mon - give us a real argument
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 04:53 AM

Jim. How can the UN function correctly when 5 members hold veto powers and kill many worthwhile resolutions stone dead? Have a read of gaddaffi's UN speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 05:17 AM

"Jim. How can the UN function correctly when 5 members hold veto powers "
I have been making this point for as long as I can remember
Committees do the research, powerful nations block actions their findings
It is not the findings that are at fault (which is what you are challenging)
It is the lack of action on those findings.
The fact that all of this is done publicly is the greatest value of the U.N. - we know when they are not doing their duty
Interestingly, the two greatest blockers of action by vetoes are your particular flavours of the month - Russia and the United States
The U.S. has operated over 100 vetoes in order to prevent action against Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses.
Personally, I think the power of veto should be removed, but that is beside the point
As flawed as it may be, its actions are open to public scrutiny
If you took your attitude we would have no health service because of its weaknesses, no justice system, no government...... anarchic barbarism
You seek to improve it, not undermine its work
As I said, you don't need a committee to tell you what to think, but you do need one such as the U.N. to get a cross-section of differentiating views
If you believe their statement to be flawed, challenge the statement and not teh fact that any organiseation such as this is made up of flawed human beings
We all have access to the facts and the intelligence to make up our own mind on them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 06:42 AM

UN, Israel & Anti-Semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 06:57 AM

UN Watch has been described as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" (Agence France-Presse)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency describe UN Watch as "a pro Israel Organisation"

From Wiki:

"Ian Williams, former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association[67] and author of The UN For Beginners,[68] wrote in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007 that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also accused UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called "manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians.

The last sentence is a little telling ..........

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 07:01 AM

Committees do the research, powerful nations block actions their findings
It is not the findings that are at fault (which is what you are challenging)
It is the lack of action on those findings.
Jim
If only that were true. If the findings do not meet the approval of uncle sam they are ditched and all who sail with her. Also if the UN does not condone the actions of the US the US writes it's own agenda beholden to no one. That makes the UN a fairly useless organisation in my book. It also need to move its base to a more neutral country. From the little I have seen of the UN in various countries they have fleets of brand new land cruisers parked in the best hotel in town and they rarely move. Their peace keeping role I have no firsthand knowledge of.
A series of articles to elaborate:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=un+american+influence&x=11&y=8

Try reading the message and not decry the messenger

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 07:18 AM

"If the findings do not meet the approval of uncle sam they are ditched and all who sail with her."
That is actually what I said
The U.N. includes the US which is one of the six rich and powerful nations with a veto.
More opinions from a rich and powerful publication from a rich and powerful nation
AS I said - the work of the UN is far more democratic and transparent than any government empowered to suppress information and block its being gathered
I asked you a question - I ask again
What do you propose as an alternative.
I repeat, we do not rely on such organisations to make up our minds - we do so on the basis of all information to hand
I've shown you mind - you show me yours.
This is little more than a smokescreen to avoid the main issues here - the terrorist nature of the Israeli regime
To you actually have anything to show this is not the case (apart from Global Research)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 08:35 AM

The last sentence is a little telling.....

The second to last more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 08:52 AM

True Bobad, it end "for alleged bias against Israel" the defining word being alledged.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 08:57 AM

The first part of the last sentence puts to lie the second part.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 09:06 AM

Only in your (lack of) understanding of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 May 17 - 09:29 AM

Jim
To my knowledge only 5 permanent members of the UN have veto powers, China, Russia, US, GB and France.
You criticize Global Research.
I take the same stance as a blog response below, on the accuracy of their reporting:
"12. michel chossudovsky's globalresearch.ca is a light in the halls of pol darkness

agree not all globalresearch.ca writers meet high scholarly or informed opinion standards, but the vast majority do. the site is a clearinghouse for many kinds of critical pol views, from the right and left. if i need quick access to left views in particular i search the site. dr paul craig roberts is routinely featured (a repub anti-fascist former reagan treas dept undersec) as is dr chossudovsky from the left, whose pol-ec views are unassailable from the left. whoever 'conspires' to trash the site as unworthy should look in the mirror first."

As to the UN it is time the smaller countries showed initiative and destroyed the veto powers of countries and also employed sanctions against those that take action without authorisation i.e. The US.

I have a greater belief in the accuracy of Global research reporting than I have in the belief the white helmets are purely a humanitarian organisation in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 10:06 AM

"You criticize Global Research."
I'm not the slightest bit interested in Global research Iains
It is a webiste among many which puts forward opinions on politocal topics.
I'm have no itention of entering itto its merits or demerits
You have my arguments both on Israel and on The United Nations - they reprent no other view than my own
You want to challenge those views, feel free to do so with your own views
I anked you what yo propose as an alternative to the U.N. , just as I've asked you your alternatives to the human rights groups when we were arguing about Assad
There is enough information slewing around to make an independent assessment of both - nobody has to hide behind just one.
How about Amnesty International - do you still dis their account of the history of torture and oppression by the Assad Regime
If you don't like Amnesty - there's plenty more to choose from - including the statements of deserters Syria who decided they'd had enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 11:22 AM



And because Israel is part of the Western imperium, as well as a key target for Islamists, it is also enemy number one for progressives. So an obsessive preoccupation with the Jewish state becomes the default position of the Left. China, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia – pah! The focus must be on Israel and Israel alone. From that springs an entire worldview that encompasses "Zionist" control of the media, of business, of everything. And we can't be accused of targeting Jews because we don't use the word. We say Zionist, not Jew.

So deep does this warping of what it means to be Left and progressive now run that it is almost prosaic to assert Zionist control. But now, to cap it, we have a Labour leader whose entire political career has been in this milieu – feeding it, growing it and pushing it.

For months now, week by week, examples have been emerging of cut and dried anti-Semitism – most dressed up, oh so cleverly, as anti-Zionism, but much not even bothering to hide it. And the Labour leader's response to the criticism that he is soft on anti-Semitism and that it's his political mindset that has fuelled its rise is not to get hard on anti-Semitism. It's to get irritated.

The Left's hatred of Jews chills me to the bone

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 12:54 PM

Your link is to an article by Stephen Pollard who is an extreme right winger and a Islamophobic racist linked to extremist right-wing movements and campaigns
A summary of his views here
Interesting to read some of the others associated with his campaigns (Keith's Jim Murphyt is a hoot!!)
I was interested to see a mantion of the Holocaust
The authoir, in his attack on the left, carefully neglects to mention that the Left shared the fate of the Jews under facism
Right wing polotics broucht about the holocaust and ift was financed by German Capitalism who had no compunction in using Jews as slave labour until they had outlived their usefulness, when they were shipped off to the ovens.
It's too often forgotten that the Holocaust was not aimed solely at the Jews, even though they were the main victims
Communists, Trades Unionists,, Gypsies -or anybody considered superfluous to New Germany's Right wing Reich, all ended up in the same horrific place
Jim Carroll

Stephen Pollard
Politics
On Islam
In the London Review Blog Eliot Weinberg has described Pollard as an 'anti-Muslim hatemonger',[6] much like Bruce Bawer whose latest book, Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom, he reviewed in the New York Times Book Review on 26 July 2009.[7] Pollard began his review thus:
There is no more important issue facing the West than Islamism, Islamofascism or — to use yet another label — radical Islam. And there is no more necessary precondition to countering that threat than understanding it...But before we do any of that, we have to agree that the threat exists.
Pollard proceeds to accuse 'many liberals and others on the European left' of 'making common cause with radical Islam and then brazenly and bizarrely denying both the existence of that alliance and in fact the existence of any Islamist threat whatever'.[8] He acknowledges that he finds "Surrender" 'at times, hard going', but this is only in part 'because of the level of detail Bawer offers in support of his argument' and because 'Bawer is unquestionably correct, and that fact is quite simply ¬terrifying'.[9]
On Public Services
On his blog, Pollard disparages both the NHS[10] and the Royal Mail[11], and speaks approvingly of private alternatives. After accusing the Guardian and other British critics of ignorance about the US healthcare system, Pollard writes:
The plain fact is that if you have a serious disease or need long term care, if you have the right coverage you are so much better off being treated in the US that the NHS is not even comparable.
Although he qualifies the statement by adding that the 'crucial words, of course, are "if you have the right coverage", and clearly the US system is not remotely a model to be followed', he adds:
But to leap from that to the conclusion that the NHS is 'better' is dangerously deluded. The NHS is a system designed for an era when food rationing was the norm, and is metaphorically, ideologically and financially bankrupt.[12]

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 17 - 12:59 PM

Well I've read a good few wacky, unworldly rants in the papers in my time but that one takes the biscuit. Remind me -- how many hate crimes per annum directed at Jews do we have in this country?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:14 PM

Rag,
Which bit of "Settlement activity constituted the single biggest threat to peace, and had led to settler violence, home demolitions and denial of development. Decades of human rights violations had frustrated those with nothing to lose, leading to acts of violence" do you not understand.

That was something only said by Malaysia.

Which bit of "The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders" do you not understand.

No-one here denies that the settlements are regarded as illegal by other countries.

Decent countries however do not believe Israel to be guilty of any of those things in Jim's recent post.
Just saying them will get you suspended from any of our political parties, except the extreme Right or Left.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:24 PM

Jim,
We know Israel to be a Terrorist State carrying our a programme of ethnic cleansing on an entire culture of people who have occupied the area for many centuries,

Royal "We" Jim?
Saying that will get you thrown out of any mainstream political party here.
No decent democratic country describes Israel as "terrorist state" or accuses it of "ethnic cleansing."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 17 - 01:35 PM

"Saying that will get you thrown out of any mainstream political party here."
I wouldn't want to be a member of any mainstream Party Keith - but if you are implying that my observation is in any way antisemitic - prove it
I would be joined by many millions of Jews who now share that view.
"No decent democratic country describes Israel as "terrorist state" or accuses it of "ethnic cleansing."
#A cowardly defence
No decenbt democratic country would stay silent while their friends are being attacked as Israel is
Piss off
You've played all these cards far too many times
Now
About the silence of the Jewish members of Parliament WHY, WHY, WHY, if it is as serious as you claim?
It is antisemitic to suggest they they stay silent while their fellow Jews are being attacked in the way you claim
You have no interset in The Jewish Peopl - Just the extrem right Isreali regime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 17 - 05:11 PM

Isn't it strange professor that you can quote all manner of right wing extremist and consider that the rest of the people on this forum should accept them as "gospel" (I detest that word) but if 14 countries criticize the state of Israel you try and maintain that only one country made one remark.

Did you actually read the link I provided?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 05:46 PM

a Terrorist State carrying our a programme of ethnic cleansing on an entire culture of people who have occupied the area for many centuries

For the first time in history, an indigenous people regained self determination on ancestral land they had been exiled from and the Jew haters can't get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 17 - 05:54 PM

Political commentator Chris Deerin:

By the time Corbyn is finished, Labour will only be fit for conspiracy theorists and Jew-baiters

I find it all genuinely heartbreaking. It's awful to watch some of the party's brightest talents quit politics in despair or disillusionment. It's infuriating that a bunch of ideological obsessives from the bottom of the barrel are blithely destroying one of the UK's two great vehicles for social change. And the very idea it could be allowed to continue after June is enraging.

So for me, and I hope for you, this is an ABL election – Anyone But Labour. The only hope I can locate is that the humiliation about to be visited on the party is so complete, so shockingly great, so unprecedentedly painful, that not even the most shameless Trot could credibly consider carrying on. Let's show these hideous goons there is no floor to our contempt. Let's show them who's boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 May 17 - 06:06 PM

regained self determination on ancestral land

Ah, but who was there BEFORE "The Jews"??

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 04 May 17 - 09:34 PM

Ah, but who was there BEFORE "The Jews"??

It sure as hell wasn't the Arabs or Fakestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 17 - 09:17 AM

But who were these indigenous peoples? And by your "logic" don't they have a better claim on the area than "The Jews"?

When is Britain going to be given back to the Italians, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 17 - 09:29 AM

Never mind the Romans, what about the Iceni?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 17 - 09:41 AM

I wouldn't want to be a member of any mainstream Party Keith - but if you are implying that my observation is in any way antisemitic - prove it

No Jim. People like Ward have been thrown out just for saying what you say.
That is a fact not an implication.

"No decent democratic country describes Israel as "terrorist state" or accuses it of "ethnic cleansing."
#A cowardly defence

Nothing cowardly about it.
Your beliefs are not common in lands of democracy, free speech and free media. That is my point in making that statement.

About the silence of the Jewish members of Parliament WHY, WHY, WHY, if it is as serious as you claim?

There was no silence.
They raised their complaints about anti-Semitism within the Party to the leadership, as did those complaining of homophobia and misogyny.

It is antisemitic to suggest they they stay silent while their fellow Jews are being attacked in the way you claim

I did not claim that.
If it is not just another of your lies, QUOTE ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 17 - 09:46 AM

Rag,
Isn't it strange professor that you can quote all manner of right wing extremist

I have never quoted one.
If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!

if 14 countries criticize the state of Israel you try and maintain that only one country made one remark.

The statement you quoted from the UN report was only made by one country. It was not generally accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 May 17 - 10:01 AM

When is Britain going to be given back to the Italians, by the way?

The problem with your yet another false equivalence Greg is that Britain is not the ancestral homeland of the Italians and the Canaanites don't have a seat at the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 May 17 - 10:24 AM

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency describe UN Watch as "a pro Israel Organisation"

Is being pro Israel is a bad thing?

UN Watch does an admirable job exposing the hypocrisy and anti-Semitism on display at the UN.

After PLO, Qatar, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab regimes accused Israel of 'apartheid', UN Watch's Hillel Neuer took the floor: "Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq: Where are your Jews?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 17 - 10:31 AM

Not a chance professor, you would merely refute that they were right wing extremists.

I have far better things to do like popping over to the Dingle peninsula for a week with a group of friends before toddling up to the Connemara for a few weeks.

Now that is far, far better than reading your lies, evasions and general deceit day after day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 17 - 12:02 PM

Britain is not the ancestral homeland of the Italians

Nor were "The Jews" the first inhabitants of the area in question.

PS: Define "ancestral homeland". Anything like "der vaterland"?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 17 - 01:46 PM

Rag,
Not a chance professor, you would merely refute that they were right wing extremists.

I promise not to, so quote me.

Now that is far, far better than reading your lies, evasions and general deceit day after day.

Day after day? If you are not lying about me, it should be very easy to quote an example then.
I challenge and defy you to quote one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 17 - 03:29 PM

"Is being pro Israel is a bad thing?"
Is is under the present regime
Supporting Israel is supporting ethnic cleansing and mass murder
"That is a fact not an implication."
And that is what all the conflict is about - a parliamentary group at odds with its mambership and its leader
That's what has to change
"Nothing cowardly about it"
Hiding behind the silenvce of politicians is exactly that
Refusing to responsd to the fact that no decent contry would stand by silently while a country is being accused of something unjustly

"They raised their complaints about anti-Semitism within the Party "
A repetition of this shite is both cowardly and extremely dishonest
There was nothing to stop them from goiing public that was what was asked
W£hy didn't they - and you will continue to avoid this question in your equally cowardly and dishonest faschion
"!I did not claim that.
If it is not just another of your lies, QUOTE ME!"
I have half a dozen times
If you did not say it - what is the anser to the above question
What you call a double whammy, I would say
"I have never quoted one.
If you are not lying, QUOTE ME!"!
You made the most extreme racist statement ever made on this forum - that all male Muslims are implanted to rape children
The excuse you gave is that "experts" had said the same
Whoever said it - it is an extreme racist statement - one which would be subject to legal proceedings if made public.
You either quoted extremists or incvented them - take your pick
Any description of that antisemitism in the labour party yet?
Don't think tere's much point in continuing this - do you
No evidence - no case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 17 - 03:53 PM

"No Jim. People like Ward have been thrown out just for saying what you say."
Don't care what he goth thrown out for
What I say is not antisemitic - I have never attacked the Jews in my life
The Israelis have destroyed all other definitions by refusing to adhere to one of the major points
You are now doing the same
You refuse to answer the question of the silence of the Jewish members of parliament
You where asked why they didn't go public - you refuse to answer so your original excuse stands - that they have made a pact of silence
If that's not what you said - tell us why they have not gone public.
Your extremism
You made the most extreme statement ever on this forum - that all male members of an community of one and a half million are culturally implanted to have underage sex - a statement that is in fact breaking British laws.
You claim you only said it because somebody else did (though you have never produced their doing so)
Whoever said it, it is that statement of a racist fanatic.
You either quoted (unnamed) extremists or you made it up yourself
Doesn't matter which.
Yo single-handedly claimed that the Traveller community was "massivey 0ver-represented for holding slaves (one family of five members)
Nobody else has ever made that claim - it is the statement of a racist madman
Brainwashed Irish children - you are a frothing at the mouth nutter - you need to be locked up in a padded cell
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 17 - 06:22 PM

I challenge anyone to quote me saying something that I have not said, regardless of what we may be talking about at the time. In fact, whatever anyone says, I am always right because no one knows what the fuck I am on about half the time and when they do I just deny it anyway. You lose because you are all shit. So there.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 17 - 07:03 PM

You been at the Keith-juice again Dave?
What did the doctor tell you
You'll be boring next!!
You win
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 17 - 05:21 AM

Jim,
Refusing to responsd to the fact that no decent contry would stand by silently while a country is being accused of something unjustly

You can not stop nasty regimes spewing propaganda. Decent countries ignore it.

Supporting Israel is supporting ethnic cleansing and mass murder

No decent country believes that.

If it is not just another of your lies, QUOTE ME!"
I have half a dozen times

If that is not just more lying, re-quote me.

If you did not say it - what is the anser to the above question

The answer is that they did.
Complaints against the party were made to the leadership.
That is how such things are done.

"No Jim. People like Ward have been thrown out just for saying what you say."
Don't care what he goth thrown out for
What I say is not antisemitic -

That is also what he said.
They still threw him out.

You refuse to answer the question of the silence of the Jewish members of parliament

I have. They were not silent.

If I have ever quoted extremists, quote me doing it, liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 17 - 07:20 AM

Piss of Keith
same answers (or not)
Same lies
You are a racit and an antisemite
You accused the Jewish parliamentarians from staying silent
Even if you did not, you are claiming that there is antisemitism in the party that they are refusing to make public
"I have. They were not silent."
They did not go public as they easily could have done
You are making it up
If there is antisemitism - what is it
You are a lying, very disturbed obsessive little man
End of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 17 - 07:26 AM

You resort to vacuous name calling Jim.
I am not racist or anti-Semitic.

You accused the Jewish parliamentarians from staying silent
Even if you did not, you are claiming that there is antisemitism in the party that they are refusing to make public

No I am not.

You can not argue with anything I actually say so you pretend I said something else.
That is why your silly accusations never come with an actual quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 17 - 08:35 AM

"I am not racist or anti-Semitic."You accused all Muslims of being prone to underage sex becaue of their culture
That is deeply racist
You accused the Traveller community of being overrepresented as "slaveers" on the basis of the actions of about five criminals
That is deeply racist
You accused Irish shcool children of being brainwashed to hate Britain even though you ahev never been able to give examples of that hatred
That is deeply racist
You claim that tere isa massive problem with antisemitism in the labour Party, but are unable to explain why the Jews in the Party haven't gone public
Your first explanation was that they love their Party - you now deny havving said that, but it doesn't make any difference
If there was massive antisemitism, the Jewish members would have made that public - any race or culture would -- they haven't so it doesn't exist
You continue to insst there is, therefore you are accusing all the Jewish Members of of refusing to announce publicly the type of antisemitism that is supposed to be happening - a pact of mutual silence - classic antisemitism
When you were given a statement by a Jewish writer on the situation in the Labour Party, you refused even to discuss it, saying he had nothing worth listening to about the British Labour Party - a Jew with nothing to say about antisemitism - how antisemitic can you get?
Are wer wrong yo discuss the Holocaust because we are not German?
Yo are a raving xenophobic madman Keith - the only value in arguing with you is to allow you to expose yourself for what you truly are.
There's nothing "vacuous" about any of this - I've laid it out detail by detail
ou are a seriously troubled individual
Over and out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 May 17 - 10:30 AM

You been at the Keith-juice again Dave?

Nah, just a few pints of Hobgoblin. Not sure what Keith's excuse is

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 17 - 10:49 AM

You misrepresent what I have said on all those issues.
Of course I am neither racist nor anti-Semite.

As ever when you lose an argument, you resort to smearing me by lying about old ones.

Now, returning to the subject, what do Thursday's elections tell us about the situation of the Labour Party?

Stephen Kinnock said Labour had moved toward the "hard left" and was out of touch with the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 17 - 04:19 AM

This is the Zager and Evans post!

Makes more sense than some

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 17 - 06:36 AM

Makes more sense than which posts Dave?
Will you identify one or are you just coat trailing?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 17 - 08:54 AM

I didn't say makes more sense than some posts though did I Keith. I said it makes more sense than some. Whether that is people, posts or songs is entirely up to the reader to decide.

I am happy to identify a song that it makes more sense than. Itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, yellow, polka-dot bikini.

I have no idea what coat trailing means.

Will you explain why you asked or are you just looking for a fight?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 05:34 AM

Not looking for a fight Dave. That is coat trailing.
I just was trying to establish the meaning of your last few posts.
Do you consider me unreasonable to ask for a quote when accused of saying something I do not believe and would never say?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 06:12 AM

1. OK
2. Why?
3. Why ask me?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 06:35 AM

2. Of course I want to understand what point you are trying to make.
Why will you not help?

3. I ask you because I thought that might be the point you were trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 06:45 AM

Why the fuck I need to explain anything to you is beyond me but as I time anyway... There was only one point I was trying to make- The post numbered 2525 reminded me of the Zager and Evans song. That song makes more sense than a lot of things. Not everything is about you Keith nor does everything have any deep or hidden meanings.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 17 - 09:17 AM

1: You accused all Muslims of being prone to underage sex becaue of their culture

That is deeply racist

Tell me Jim what is "Muslim Culture"? Now in my travels I have lived and worked with Muslims of different sects and from different countries from West Africa to Indonesia. But we will level out the religious bit and settle on those Muslims who are Sunni, I think that you would find a Sunni Muslim from the Arabian Peninsula has a very different culture to a Sunni Muslim from either Malaysia or Indonesia. But this has been pointed out to you time and time again so no need to expect you to take any heed of it this time either.

2: You accused the Traveller community of being overrepresented as "slaveers" on the basis of the actions of about five criminals

That is deeply racist

In one instance the family involved is a dynasty who control many sites the length and breadth of England (One of the reasons they got away with it for nearly a quarter of a century) - the five you mention were the ones who could be charged, tried, convicted and imprisoned on the evidence produced. Cannot think of any others who have illegally kept dozens of vulnerable people in appalling conditions to be worked to the point of exhaustion without payment - no wonder the members of this family are millionaires eh Jim?


3: You accused Irish shcool children of being brainwashed to hate Britain even though you ahev never been able to give examples of that hatred.

That is deeply racist

Where do you think this came from Jim:

The words are Dominic Behan's

My name is O'Hanlon, and I've just turned sixteen.
My home is in Monaghan, and where I was weaned
I learned all my life cruel England's to blame,
So now I am part of the patriot game.

The Irish historian Ruth Dudley Edwards said exactly the same of her education in the republic as did many of the surviving "volunteers" interviewed in that documentary about the IRA's 1956 - 1962 "Border Campaign" that you rather pointedly refused to watch.

I take it that they are all wrong and just accept in the midst of one enormous brain fart that Jim knows best? Don't count on it, on this and many more things I believe and know you are wrong.

4: You claim that tere isa massive problem with antisemitism in the labour Party, but are unable to explain why the Jews in the Party haven't gone public
Your first explanation was that they love their Party - you now deny havving said that, but it doesn't make any difference
If there was massive antisemitism, the Jewish members would have made that public - any race or culture would -- they haven't so it doesn't exist

Any problem within the Labour Party picked up by members of that Party would in the first instance always be reported by them to the Labour Party's National Executive Committee for them to sort out - initially with regard to charges of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party that is precisely what was done. The OULC affair raised the stakes as the University and the House of Commons were threatening Inquiries of their own. After Baroness Royall's and Baroness Chakrabarti's Inquiries finished only then did those complaining about various things within the Labour Party go public with their concerns - Labour's NEC have not been so forthcoming and in accordance with Chakrabarti's "whitewash" it is highly unlikely that they ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 09:18 AM

Dave, you referred to me by name in one of the posts.
Jim accused me of saying things and I requested quotes.
You clearly supported him against me on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 17 - 10:16 AM

"Tell me Jim what is "Muslim Culture"?"
Go ask you friend - he made the accusation
He also added "Pakistani" which makes it racist
Nuffin to do with me
"In one instance the family involved is a dynasty "
The family in question numbered five people who were settled, wealth enough to live in a mansion and employed mainly non-Travellers in their enterprise.
No other Travellers were convicted so I assume the enterprise becomes equally a settled "over-representation" as well!!
Can you actually verify that this lot "controlled" other Traveler sites, many or otherwise, or is this more shit you have snatched out of the air on the spot (rhetorical question).
Were other Travellers arrested and tried as being accomplices - if not, why not - perhas the authorities, having a well-know soft spot for Travellers, looked the other way.
"Where do you think this came from Jim:"
It was compesed by Dominic Behan - whathas this to do with Keith's "generations of Irish schoolchildren" being brainwashed.
One thing fro certain - you are i9n no danger of suffering the same fate - you lack the essential ingredient
Labour's supposed antisemitism
One more time - the victims of this so-called antisemitism were entitled to go public at any time - no law restricts them just to keeping the matter within the Labour Party
According to you pair of tossers - they did and a year after these accusations surfaced, we still have no idea of their specific nature nor the number involved
We have two people criticising Israel and Zionism - nothing else
NEXT!!!!
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 17 - 10:40 AM

Incidentally
"In one instance the family involved is a dynasty "
This is yet another racist smear
'Connors' is one of the most common names among Travellers - not a "dynasty" just a shared name
There are no reports of other shares of that name being implicated in the crimes of these few
Like all racists - you make it up as you go along
Jeeze - you would have made a fortune as propagandist for the Nazis - just what they needed yo fill their ovens, as it was - they managed between a quarter and a half million based on shite like yours.
You really are the scummiest of the scum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 10:40 AM

Dave, you referred to me by name in one of the posts.

I refered to you by name because Jim asked if I had been on the Keith juice.

Jim accused me of saying things and I requested quotes.

WTF has that got to do with me?

You clearly supported him against me on that.

Did I? When and where? Do you have any quotes to link to?

Now stop wasting all our time looking for meanings that do not exist.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 11:26 AM

Jim,
Go ask you friend - he made the accusation

Not true.

Dave,
Your reply to Jim about Keith juice was,
"Nah, just a few pints of Hobgoblin. Not sure what Keith's excuse is ."

You identified me by name as the person you were critical of, clearly demonstrating your support for him over me.

WTF has that got to do with me?

Because what you said I needed an excuse for was asking for quotes to support false claims about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 17 - 11:46 AM

Jesus wept Keith. I have no idea how your mind works but I suspect a psychiatrist could make a fortune out of you. That is the biggest load of paranoiac bollocks I have read for quite some time.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 17 - 11:54 AM

"A psychiatrist would need a psychiatrist after a few sessions with this suitable case for treatment   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 17 - 01:51 PM

Dave, why not just tell us the point you were making in those posts?
I think I have it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 17 - 02:02 PM

You're really not very intelligent are you professor. I said I would be on holiday and frankly give a flying fuck about anything you post.

So, given that information, you reply and ask me to give you examples of your lies and deceit. Brilliant really, really intelligent.

I've just logged on to my tablet to check the news and email. We've played music for the past two nights, till very early in the morning and I'm now sitting in a beautiful bar, in a beautiful village, in a beautiful part of the world having a beautiful pint of Guinness.

Did I mention the word beautiful !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 17 - 03:00 AM

I have told you the point. Whether you chose to believe that or not is completely irrelevant. Please stop trying to involve me in your fantasies.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 17 - 04:06 AM

Rag, if you accuse someone of "lies and deceit" you should be prepared to back that accusation.

You can't because your accusation has no basis in fact.

I remember when you blatantly faked some quotes to reverse the meaning of what the historians had actually said.
I can back that if you like. I have kept the details.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 04:08 AM

Dave,
Please stop trying to involve me in your fantasies.

I did not fantasise your naming me as someone who needed an excuse for their posts.
My posts were just asking Jim to substantiate his false accusations against me.
Why does that need to be excused?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 04:11 AM

More reports of anti-Semitism are still emerging.

Durham County Council Labour candidate for Weardale suspended from party following following allegations of anti-Semitism
A LABOUR candidate in an upcoming council election has been suspended from the party over allegations of …
The Northern Echo 11d

Labour student who introduced Jeremy Corbyn admits to racist and anti-Semitic Twitter posts
"As some of you may have seen online, some anti-Semitic, homophobic …
International Business Times 14h

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 05:09 AM

Unlinked again Keith
This is what your unnamed Labour candidate said - not an attack on the Jewish peopel in sight
s I have always said - criticism of Israel has nor becoem antisemitism for the Israelis and their hangers on Antisemitic by definition
Was tehre a reason you didn't link this old news?
Jim Carroll

H Alan Myers LABOUR - EYES LEFT- DURHAM
2 Apr 2016 at 20:11 • 0
The more I learn about Israeli behaviour the more disgusted I am with them. There's no wonder they are hated amongst the Arabs. They are the single cause of the troubles at present.
Remember their disgraceful invasion of the Golan Heights? That's exactly what they are doing on the south west coast at the moment. An illegal state, invading peaceful people who have been forced to try and defend their territory.
And if you say anything against them they cry anti semitism and harp back to the holocaust to curry sympathy Well, the holocaust is exactly what they are performing on the rightful inhabitants of Palestine with the financial support of the US and UK.
The problems caused by "terrorism1 presently are 100% caused by the Zionist leaders of Israel (an illegal state) and their billionaire masters, the Rothschilds.
If you want peace, stop supporting Israel and insist your government does the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 17 - 06:26 AM

Wasn't that supposedly "disgusting" invasion of the Golan Heights the result of an even more "disgusting" attempted Syrian invasion of Israel in 1973? IIRC the Syrians invaded Israel from the Golan in what became known as the Yom Kippur War and were successfully repelled by the IDF. The Israelis occupied the Syrian Army's jumping off points as a defensive precaution against any future attacks making it known to the Ba'athist regime in Damascus that land would be exchanged for bi-lateral peace treaty.

As far as I know since 2005 there have been no invasions, "disgusting" or otherwise in the South-West corner of Israel, certainly none in 2016 so in stating the following - "That's exactly what they are doing on the south west coast at the moment. An illegal state, invading peaceful people who have been forced to try and defend their territory." - Yer man H Alan Myers is telling deliberate lies to be swallowed by gullible dupes such as yourself Jim. Israel is far from being an illegal state and to state that it is is anti-Semitic. Officially recognised on May 1948 firstly by the United Nations, secondly by the U.S.S.R. and thirdly by the U.S.A. It would appear that the "H" in H Alan Myers must stand for "Havering".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 06:50 AM

Permanent occupation of conquered territories and the driving out of the occupants is an offence
Go count the permanent refugees from that occupation and see the scope of the offence
Beside the point anyway - I've no intention in arguing the toss with idiots about something that has been deemed a human rights offence by the U.N. anyway, certainly not with someone who invents information rathrer than providing evidence (any news about those Traveller "Dynasties" or the network of slave-owning sites yet?)
ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of GOLAN HEIGHTS
My point was that Keith deliebrately didn't link to what his "antisemite" said - not antisemitic at all.
Go and invent something else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 17 - 09:09 AM

In June 1967, during the Six Day war, Israel captured the heights. Six years later, in a surprise attack during what became known as the Yom Kippur war, Syria overran the Golan before being repulsed by Israeli counterattacks. After the war, Syria signed a disengagement agreement that left the Golan in Israel's hands. On 14 December 1981, the Knesset voted to annex the Golan Heights.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 09:17 AM

Jim,, I just copied the Bing search result.
You could just Google the text on it.

It was not "old news."
One was 11 days, the other 14 hours.


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-student-who-introduced-jeremy-corbyn-admits-racist-anti-semitic-twitter-posts-1620785

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15250825.Anti_Semitism_allegations_lead_to_suspension_of_Labour_Party_council_election_can

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 11:02 AM

"Jim,, I just copied the Bing search result.
You always avoid linking dodgy claims Keith
The current one has nothing to do with antisemitism - it rightfully criticises Israel and Zionism
The earlier one was a twitter posted when she was sixteen years old - she has apologised and resigned
That just about sums up how much the Labour party is riddled with antisemitism
How pathetic are you going to get in your witch-hunt Keith?
Evil little man
"In June 1967, during the Six Day war, Israel captured the heights. "

That's what the U.N. said Booboo - the GOLAN HEIGHTS is held illegally
Israel has now asked your hero Donald Trump to intervene
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 11:22 AM

Jim, she made them when she was 16, but she is only 19 now.
She has done the right thing now, but of course it has been picked up as another example.
You may not think the other's statement was anti-Semitic, but the Labour Party suspended him over it.
He is quoted as saying that Israel's government has "billionaire masters." What do you suppose he meant by that?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 17 - 11:46 AM

Alan Myers comes off sounding like a neo-Nazi. This is the kind of candidate the Labour party is attracting. Too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 17 - 12:22 PM

That's what the U.N. said Booboo - the GOLAN HEIGHTS is held illegally

Lol, the "UN", well recognized for it's anti Israel bias, offers a lot of opinions on Israel and that's just what they are OPINIONS, mostly initiated by those paragons of human rights, members of the Arab League. And we all know the old saying about opinions, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 17 - 01:33 PM

Hold a referendum for those who live on the Golan to see what they would prefer. The question: The occupied Golan should be returned to the governance of Syria tick YES or NO.

Given that choice I am pretty certain the stampede to be slaughtered by Assad would be minimal.

As to you and the UN being against permanently occupied territory acquired by force I note a marked lack of condemnation concerning Egypt's former annexation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem which lasted from 1948 until 1967 when both territories were liberated.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 01:56 PM

"Hold a referendum for those who live on the Golan to see what they would prefer"
Sort of like holding a referendum in Mayfair
You can't vote on which Country you live in
Stupid, stupid argument
This land has been stolen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 02:09 PM

Perhaps it might be more sensible to ask THE ARABS LIVING on THE GOLAN HEIGHTS to see where they would prefer to live
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 17 - 02:35 PM

The Golan was used to fire down on Israeli farms until they finally took it from Syria, which is still in a state of declared war with Israel.
How can it be illegal to hold enemy land during a war?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 17 - 02:51 PM

"The Golan was used to fire down on Israeli farms until they finally took it from Syria,"
Israel, iwith its well trained army and all the military strength at its disposal is more than capable of defending itself without persecuting Third world Arabs
The Golan Heights are illegally held - whatever excuse you care to put up.
Maybe we should have occupied The Isle of Man to Protect Britain from the Irish during the Troubles - waddya think?
How stupid can you get?
Occupying territory and drivin out its occupants is going to heighten tension, not ensure peace
Nessie the Nutter has declared that peace loving Israel will never hand back the Golan Heights
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 17 - 03:45 AM

"The Golan was used to fire down on Israeli farms until they finally took it from Syria,"
Israel, iwith its well trained army and all the military strength at its disposal is more than capable of defending itself without persecuting Third world Arabs

"With its well trained army and all the military strength at its disposal" Israel very nearly lost that war.
There is no defence against dug in artillery firing down from high ground except to take that ground, which Israel finally achieved at great cost.
It was not illegal because Syria had declared war and because shelling farmers is a war crime. Syria is still in a state of war with Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 04:13 AM

No country wins a war, refuses a return of those who fled, oppresses the population of a nation and continues to occupy
That is a wat=r crime enacted by a terrorist state
It has been deemed illegal by the U.N. and all your right wing ranting does not change that fact
Israel has no legal right to the Golan Heights
Germany declared war - does that give us a right to rule Germany
Stupid argument
These crimes are being committed against civilians and non combatants a generation after the war ended
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 17 - 06:23 AM

"Maybe we should have occupied The Isle of Man to Protect Britain from the Irish during the Troubles - waddya think?" - Jim at his idiotic best

In what way would such an action have helped to protect the British mainland? You were right - "How stupid can you get?" - with you Jim the answer to that is your stupidity appears to be "Boundless".

Great comparison though Jim Israel and Syria were nations at war with one another. As far as the UK was concerned they were at war with no-one involved in "The Troubles".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 09:06 AM

"In what way would such an action have helped to protect the British mainland? "
It wouldn't - my point exactly
Occupation of The Golan Heights has SFA to do with security and more than the murderous incursions into Gaza has
It has to do with the creation of a monotheistic area free of Muslims
It is recognised internationally as an illegal occupation, which iws what is is
Israel has now taken steps to control their own media - that's how right wing their regime has become
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 17 - 10:35 AM

Occupation of The Golan Heights has SFA to do with security

Of course it has. As you have been told, artillery can fire on Israeli villages and farms from there, and actually did so until Israel took it.

No country wins a war, refuses a return of those who fled, oppresses the population of a nation and continues to occupy

The Soviet Union did in 1945.
Again, Syria is still at war with Israel. When they decide to negotiate an armistice no doubt the Golan will form part of the negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 17 - 10:36 AM

The occupation of the Golan has a great deal to do with security. Since the Golan Heights have been occupied how many attacks on Israel have been launched from Syria - Don't strain yourself too much Jim the answer is none.

While on the subject of the Gaza Strip. Since unilaterally withdrawing completely from the Gaza Strip how many missiles have been fired into Israel from territory supposedly under the control of Hamas? Again don't strain yourself Jim it runs into thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 12:26 PM

"how many missiles have been fired into Israel from territory supposedly under the control of Hamas? "
And how may civilians have died at the hands of Israel - how many Palestinians have lost their home - how many Palestinians have been publicly humiliated
According to the official Israeli observers, 27 Israeli civilians, 5 foreign nationals, 5 IDF soldiers have died from rocket fire in ten years - Israel forces slaughtered more than that in a half day during their last bloodfest
The Palestinians are fighting to protect their homes, their land and their way of life against a highly trained, heavily armed nuclear facilitated aggressive state
They have no standing army to speak of, no training and very few weapons.
The are fighting a war of national defence against a ruthless extremist regime intent on driving them out of the territory
The Palestinians are doing nothing the Israelis didn't do to gain their right to statehood.
The blockade has now been in existence for a decade
How do you expect them to react - with petitions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 11 May 17 - 02:20 PM

Israel offered to return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace. That was nine years ago. Guess who rejected the offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 17 - 03:18 PM

Israel offered to return the Golan Heihts for capitulation to the sttus quo
Guess why the offer was not taken up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 17 - 03:30 PM

Jim Carroll - 11 May 17 - 12:26 PM

Complete and utter Bullshit.

1: And how may civilians have died at the hands of Israel - how many Palestinians have lost their home - how many Palestinians have been publicly humiliated

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza on the premise that rocket attacks would cease - simply put they didn't. Don't know about you Carroll but there is not a single sovereign state in the world that would not react with extreme prejudice where they subjected to thousands of missiles being purposely aimed at their civilian population. To prevent civilians dying all Hamas had to do was to prevent rockets being fired into Israel - simply put they didn't therefore responsibility for all civilian casualties and fatalities inside Gaza rests with Hamas. Hamas are also responsible for any perceived humiliation.

2: The Palestinians are fighting to protect their homes, their land and their way of life"

No they are not, the reason they are fighting according to the declared aim of their charter is to destroy the internationally recognised sovereign independent state of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish population of that country.

3: "they are fighting against" - against a highly trained, heavily armed nuclear facilitated aggressive state
They have no standing army to speak of, no training and very few weapons.

In which case numbnuts if what you say is true then this war would have been over, all done and dusted, fifty years ago. The degree of restraint that the Israelis have shown is remarkable, considering the unprecedented levels of provocation they have been subjected to.

4: The are fighting a war of national defence against a ruthless extremist regime intent on driving them out of the territory
The Palestinians are doing nothing the Israelis didn't do to gain their right to statehood.

According to the Palestine Authority in their address to the United Nations they are "fighting for" a Two-State solution. A lesser two-state solution to the one the self same Arabs of Palestine were offered back in 1947 - the two state solution they rejected, preferring instead to go to war, a war they lost.

5: The blockade has now been in existence for a decade
How do you expect them to react - with petitions.

Israel has not been the only country enforcing a blockade. There have been numerous occasions when Israeli and Egyptian authorities have intercepted weapons, explosives and rockets being smuggled into Gaza from Syria and Iran.

How do I expect them to react? Well they've tried war for 70 years and got nowhere, perhaps they should try peace and co-existence. Kicking Hamas and their agenda into touch and officially recognising the State of Israel would be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 11 May 17 - 06:52 PM

Taking and occupying territory in a defensive war for defensive purposes, especially since a state of war is ongoing, is legitimate and legal. The taking and occupying of territory in an offensive war, such as is currently the case in Crimea, Cyprus, Vietnam, Tibet, Indonesia, Morocco etc. is illegitimate and illegal. Of course not a peep about these illegal occupations is to be heard from Carroll and his ilk. Anyone care to speculate why that is the case? I'll give you a hint - no Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 17 - 08:11 PM

"Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza on the premise that rocket attacks would cease - simply put they didn't."

Would you care to verify that this was a "premise?" That is not my understanding of the real reason for the withdrawal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 17 - 08:54 PM

Regarding the reasons for the withdrawal from Gaza:

In October 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weissglass, explained the meaning of Sharon's statement further:

The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.

Not an awful lot to do with rockets, eh, Teribus? It would be nice if you could desist from making things up as you go along.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 17 - 02:16 AM

The disengagement plan was not Sharon's it was the idea of Sharansky's and it involved Jewish settlements in Gaza and in the Northern part of the West Bank. Initially the Israeli Government was dealing with Palestine National Authority.

From the Washington Post - 10th August, 2005:

Who favors the withdrawal?

Public opinion polls show that around 60 percent of Israelis and virtually all Palestinians support the withdrawal.

Who opposes the withdrawal?

Israel's right-wing and religious parties are most opposed to the withdrawal. Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a member of Sharon's Likud Party, resigned in early August in protest, the highest ranking Israeli official to do so. He said that withdrawal does not require reciprocal concessions by the Palestinians. Hundreds of Israeli soldiers who object to the withdrawal have been excused from duties.

What will happen after the evacuation?

The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) will administer Gaza while Israel will continue to control its borders, coastline and airspace. The biggest change for Palestinians will be that the tight travel restrictions that Israel has imposed within the territory will be lifted. The Palestinians hope to build apartment buildings on the site of the demolished Israeli homes.

How will the withdrawal affect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The Israeli government expects the withdrawal will reduce Palestinian attacks on Jewish citizens. The Israeli Foreign Ministry says that the withdrawal shows that Israel is willing to make significant concessions for peace. The PNA, while welcoming the dismantling of the settlements, says that the withdrawal is a unilateral move designed to consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank where the majority of Palestinians live.

ALSO

Statement by PM Ariel Sharon - Address to the Fourth Herzliya Conference - (December 18, 2003)

The Road Map is a clear and reasonable plan, and it is therefore possible and imperative to implement it. The concept behind this plan is that only security will lead to peace - and in that sequence. Without the achievement of full security - within the framework of which terrorist organizations will be dismantled - it will not be possible to achieve genuine peace, a peace for generations. This is the essence of the Road Map. The opposite perception, according to which the very signing of a peace agreement will produce security out of thin air, has already been tried in the past and failed miserably.  And such will be the fate of any other plan which promotes this concept.  These plans deceive the public and create false hope. There will be no peace before the eradication of terrorism…

I take this opportunity to appeal to the Palestinians and repeat, as I said at Aqaba: It is not in our interest to govern you. We would like you to govern yourselves in your own country: a democratic Palestinian state with territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria and economic viability, which would conduct normal relations of tranquility, security, and peace with Israel. Abandon the path of terrorism and let us together stop the bloodshed. Let us move forward together toward peace.

We wish to speedily advance implementation of the Road Map toward quiet and a genuine peace.  We hope that the Palestinian Authority will carry out its part. However, if in a few months the Palestinians still continue to disregard their part in implementing the Road Map - then Israel will initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians.

The purpose of the Disengagement Plan is to reduce terrorism as much as possible, and grant Israeli citizens the maximum level of security. The process of disengagement will lead to an improvement in the quality of life, and will help strengthen the Israeli economy. The unilateral steps which Israel will take in the framework of the Disengagement Plan will be fully coordinated with the United States. We must not harm our strategic coordination with the United States. These steps will increase security for the residents of Israel and relieve the pressure on the IDF and security forces in fulfilling the difficult tasks they are faced with. The Disengagement Plan is meant to grant maximum security and minimize friction between Israelis and Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 02:40 AM

"hat's bullshit?
You have the figures of how many have died - Palestine if fighting a war for its existence - it is heavily outnumbered - Israel is the aggressor - go looke at the maps to see how they relate to any Imperial agreements.....
No bullshit there.
Israel is an agressive expansionist State who wishes to turn te area into a Jewish State and eject the Arabs
They haven't managed yet, "numbnuts" because, despite U.S. support, they are bound by International law and by pressure from fellow Jews, who are as much opponents to their behaviour as the rest of us are
Many Jews remember the Haolocause and take the attitude that many survivors did - "never again - not to anybody"
Israel has its own internal opponents - yesterday, Benny the Blusterer made public announced that he was closing the official Israeli News Agencies and replacing them with his own.
Are you seriosly suggesting that the Palestinians are as well armed and well trained as the Israelis and they have nuclear weapons tucked away in their back pockets?
Gross stupidity - even for you
The blockade has blocked essential supplies for building, is has slowed down essential medical shipments, it has never been anything other than an attempt to starve the Palestinians into submission - numbnuts
"Defence" has been an excuse for mass murder ans oppresssion for as long as there has been conflict - the Nazis used it as an excuse for Lidice
"officially recognising the State of Israel would be a good start."
So would recognising the Palestinian's right to their land and homes
As I said, the Israelis are the aggressors in all this and they have bene from day one.
The British ships steamed out of Palestine to the sound off hand grenades being thrown into occupied houses by 'freedom fighters'
As David Ben Gurion said "We stole their land".
He also instructed that the Arabs should never be evicted
As I said GO LOOK AT THE MAPS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 02:40 AM

"hat's bullshit?
You have the figures of how many have died - Palestine if fighting a war for its existence - it is heavily outnumbered - Israel is the aggressor - go looke at the maps to see how they relate to any Imperial agreements.....
No bullshit there.
Israel is an agressive expansionist State who wishes to turn te area into a Jewish State and eject the Arabs
They haven't managed yet, "numbnuts" because, despite U.S. support, they are bound by International law and by pressure from fellow Jews, who are as much opponents to their behaviour as the rest of us are
Many Jews remember the Haolocause and take the attitude that many survivors did - "never again - not to anybody"
Israel has its own internal opponents - yesterday, Benny the Blusterer made public announced that he was closing the official Israeli News Agencies and replacing them with his own.
Are you seriosly suggesting that the Palestinians are as well armed and well trained as the Israelis and they have nuclear weapons tucked away in their back pockets?
Gross stupidity - even for you
The blockade has blocked essential supplies for building, is has slowed down essential medical shipments, it has never been anything other than an attempt to starve the Palestinians into submission - numbnuts
"Defence" has been an excuse for mass murder ans oppresssion for as long as there has been conflict - the Nazis used it as an excuse for Lidice
"officially recognising the State of Israel would be a good start."
So would recognising the Palestinian's right to their land and homes
As I said, the Israelis are the aggressors in all this and they have bene from day one.
The British ships steamed out of Palestine to the sound off hand grenades being thrown into occupied houses by 'freedom fighters'
As David Ben Gurion said "We stole their land".
He also instructed that the Arabs should never be evicted
As I said GO LOOK AT THE MAPS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:36 AM

There was no mention of rockets. No mention of a quid pro quo with the Palestinians in Gaza. It was the Israeli regime of that time justifying the withdrawal to its people by telling them that it would make them safer. Didn't turn out well, did it? Perhaps if they'd withdrawn with good grace, not demolishing the settlements on their way out and not putting the place under a state of permanent siege and blockade, the Israeli people really would have been safer. You simply haven't answered my challenge to your comment, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 17 - 07:56 AM

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 09:00 AM

"Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Shaw."
No need to explain - we can see what you're doing Bobad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 09:36 AM

He's stalking, and not for the first time. Let's ignore him, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 17 - 10:26 AM

Jim Carroll - 12 May 17 - 02:40 AM

More Bullshit.

1: You have the figures of how many have died - Palestine if fighting a war for its existence - it is heavily outnumbered - Israel is the aggressor

OK Jom you tell me who the aggressor has been:

1920 - Arab Bedouins attack Jewish settlers in farms that those settlers bought from the former Ottoman rulers of the Territory known as Palestine.

1921 - The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Yasser Arafat's Uncle) deliberately spread lies about the Jewish population of Jerusalem that sparked off riots where Jews were murdered, their businesses ruined and their houses ransacked.

1923 - 77% of the Mandated Territory of Palestine is given over for the sole and exclusive settlement by the Arabs of Palestine. The new territory is called Transjordan. The remaining 23% of the territory retains the name of Palestine, an area where anybody can settle without restriction related to race or religion.

1929 - The Grand Mufti gets up to his old tricks again, lies through his teeth to incite riots and attacks on the Jewish population. This time the authorities see through the lies and the Grand Mufti is forced to flee.

1936 - The start of the extravaganza known as the Great Arab Revolt against British administration of Palestine and against Jewish immigration that had been authorised by the League of Nations in 1922. The Jewish population aid the British against the Arab rebellion.

1937 - The Peel Commission examines solutions to the problems of Palestine. They conclude that the Arabs of Palestine and the Jews of Palestine will not agree to peacefully co-exist in a single state. The Peel Commission recommends a two-state solution. The proposal is not pursued by the British Administration, the League of Nations does not endorse the findings of the Peel Commission.

1946 - The League of Nations ceases to exist, having been replaced by the United Nations. The British Mandate for Palestine is due to expire in 1948.

1947 - Britain announces the independence of the State of Jordan, formerly Transjordan and declares that it will quit Palestine by 1st August 1948 at the latest, the date for the expiry of the Mandate is revised to 14th May 1948. The UN propose the former solution of the Peel Commission - A two-state solution which the Jews accept and the Arabs reject.

1948 - At midnight on the 14th May 1948 the State of Israel came into existence. The state was officially recognised by the United Nations immediately, the first state to recognise the existence of Israel was the U.S.S.R., the second was the United States of America. On declaring it's existence the State of Israel was attacked by five neighbouring Arab States. The war lasted until 1949 and the war was won by Israel. The UN brokered a ceasefire agreement that resulted in no peace treaty. The Israelis complied with the ceasefire terms and conditions the Arab states did not.

1956 - Between 1949 and 1956 Israel was subjected to attacks by Fedayeen fighters from Sinai, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. In 1956 President Nasser of Egypt closed the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba to vessels trading with Israel. This was in direct contravention of the 1949 ceasefire agreement. The Israelis expelled the Egyptians from the Gaza Strip and from the Sinai to relieve the Egyptian blockade and open up the Gulf of Aqaba. The UN again brokered a ceasefire. Israel withdrew from Gaza and the Sinai, in return Egypt opened the canal and the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping and demilitarised the Sinai Peninsula allowing a UN monitoring force to be positioned there.

1967 - Egypt orders the UN Monitors out of the Sinai, closes the Straits of Tiran again in contravention of the 1956 ceasefire agreement and positions an Army of 100,000 on Israel's border. In agreement and in concert with Egypt other Arab armies are positioned on Israel's borders with Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. Under such a blockade Israel can last three weeks. Under a barrage of threats from its Arab enemies Israel launches a pre-emptive strike. The ensuing war results in a humiliating defeat for the Arab forces. Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Shebaa farms, and the Golan Heights. On this occasion the Israelis hold onto land taken, from now on land will be exchanged in bi-lateral peace treaties with Israel's Arab neighbours. Arab leaders meet in Khartoum where they agree that there should be no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations with the State of Israel.

1973 - Israel is attacked without warning by Egypt and Syria in what became known as the Yom Kippur War. This results in another humiliating defeat for the Arabs.

1978- Israel attacked by Palestinians based in Lebanon results in First South Lebanon conflict.

1979 - Peace Accord signed with Egypt.

1981 - Israel attacks Iraqi nuclear facilities

1982 - First Lebanon War

1985–2000 - Second South Lebanon conflict

1987–1993 - First Intifada

1991 - Israel attacked by Iraq

1994 - Peace Accord with Jordan

2000–2004 - Second Intifada

2006 - Gaza Operation Summer Rains
2006 - Second Lebanon War

2008–2009 - Gaza War

2012 - Gaza Operation Pillar of Defense

2014 - Israel–Gaza conflict

All of the above were the result of attacks on the Jewish population of Palestine, or attacks or threat of attacks on Israel - and you are peddling the MYTH of Israel being an agressive expansionist State

2: Yes Jom let us take a look at some maps. Can you show me the Hamas or PNA Map showing the borders of the two-state solution they claim to be fighting for? No didn't think you could.

Map 1 Mandated Territory of Palestine 24th April 1920

Map 2 Mandated Territory of Palestine 24th July 1922

Map 3 1947 UN Plan Rejected by the Arabs of Palestine

3: Israel is an agressive expansionist State who wishes to turn te area into a Jewish State and eject the Arabs
They haven't managed yet, "numbnuts" because, despite U.S. support, they are bound by International law and by pressure from fellow Jews, who are as much opponents to their behaviour as the rest of us are

So let me see if I have got this right according to your rather idiotic and cockeyed view on things. Despite everything, Israel will never be able to achieve its ambitions because of international law, the views of Jewish opponents to the Israeli Government and because of opposition represented as such as yourself. If that is true Jom what's the problem? No need to take any further action.


4: "Are you seriosly suggesting that the Palestinians are as well armed and well trained as the Israelis and they have nuclear weapons tucked away in their back pockets?

Nope - Never said anything even remotely like that - If you think that I did could you please provide a direct quote? (Don't hold your breath folks - He's not going to produce anything)

"Gross stupidity - even for you Jim"

5: The blockade has blocked essential supplies for building - Yet Hamas is suffering no shortage of building materials to construct concrete lined tunnels and underground command centres, shelters and weapons storage areas. In all of this construction, they have not built one single shelter for their civilian population - why is that Jim? By the way Jim is that the blockade imposed by the Israelis? Or the blockade imposed by the Egyptians?

6: is has slowed down essential medical shipments

Not true.

7: it has never been anything other than an attempt to starve the Palestinians into submission

Why would the Egyptians want to starve the Palestinians into submission Jom? If that was indeed the aim of the Israelis then how have they not succeeded? - numbnuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 17 - 10:57 AM

you are peddling the MYTH of Israel being an agressive expansionist State

That's an example of the typical rhetoric of Jew haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 11:56 AM

Well, Teribus, your sanitised version of history appears to have forgotten to mention Haganah-Irgun, the Stern Gang and the litany of terrorists they contained who made themselves "respectable" by becoming political leaders in Israel. You might also have mentioned gratuitous aggression such as the Sabra/Shatila massacres of civilians, overseen by the IDF, the scattering of hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets over southern Lebanon, the kidnapping and subsequent mistreatment of Mordechai Vanunu for blowing the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons industry which is in defiance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the razing of villages by bulldozers and helicopter gunships and the deliberate targeting of schools in Gaza, the deliberate impoverishment by blockade of a million and a half civilians, attempts at ethnic cleansing in the Negev, the theft of land by building the apartheid wall and the ongoing misappropriation of the more desirable tracts of land for settlements. You're going to have a very difficult time ascribing those acts of aggression to a response to Arab aggression, aren't you? When I see you nakedly "cleaning up" history in this way it leads me to doubt even more your reliability when it comes to any other of the historical "facts" that you're so fond of reeling out.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:13 PM

Well Steve, there were "terrorists" and atrocities on both sides before Israel was established.
Israel has never been shown to be directly responsible for Sabra/Shatila.
All militaries used cluster bombs back then before there danger to civilians was recognised.
Israel and decent armies have now stopped using them.
Vanunu was treated better than most countries treat people who release state secrets.
The deliberate targeting of schools in Gaza? Why would they?
The Gaza blockade was not to impoverish anyone, though blockade has always been considered a legitimate tactic in war. It was to prevent war materials getting to a self proclaimed enemy.
What ethnic cleansing in Negev?
The wall was not built to steal land, but as a last resort to stop suicide bombings. It succeeded and without the loss of life a military attempted solution would have.
If settlement land is legally bought and paid for, then "settlers" are just what we would call immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:43 PM

What a trashy post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 12:43 PM

More Bullshit.
1: You have the figures of how many have died - Palestine if fighting a war for its existence - it is heavily outnumbered - Israel is the aggressor

OK Jom you tell me who the aggressor has been:
This gets mindlessly repetitive
What happened before Israel was establishes is totally irrelevant to what is happening today
The Arabs saw giving into the Empire by allowing them to establish a new Jewish state a threat to their homeland so they opposed it – their fears proved to have some foundation as things turned out – you've had the maps.
You carefully omit the fact of the immediate aggression that took place when the British left
A summary of what took place

"According to Benny Morris, Yishuv (or later Israeli) soldiers killed roughly 800 Arab civilians and prisoners of war.[1] Most of these killings occurred as villages were overrun and captured during the Second phase of the Civil War, Operation Dani, Operation Hiram and Operation Yoav.[1][5]
According to Benny Morris, Jewish forces were responsible for 24 massacres during the war. Aryeh Yizthaki attests to 10 major massacres with more than 50 victims each. Palestinian researcher Salman Abu-Sitta records 33, half of them occurring during the civil war period. Saleh Abdel Jawad has listed 68 villages where acts of indiscriminate killing of prisoners, and civilians took place, where no threat was posed to Yishuv or Israeli soldiers.
The main massacres and attacks against Jewish civilians were the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre where 39 Jews were killed by Arab workers after Irgun members had thrown a bomb into the crowd, and the Kfar Etzion massacre where around 120-150 defenders were killed by Arab irregulars, according to some accounts with the participation of Arab Legion soldiers. With 80 deaths, the Hadassah medical convoy attack is also reported in some sources as a massacre because it included the mass killing of medical personnel by Arabs.
Both Israeli archives and Palestinian testimonies confirm killings occurred in numerous Arab villages. According to Morris, the "worst cases" were the Saliha massacre with 60 to 70 killed, the Deir Yassin massacre with around 112, Lydda massacre with around 250 and the Abu Shusha massacre with 60-70. In Al-Dawayima, accounts of the death toll vary. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports 100-200 casualties, Morris has estimated "hundreds" and also reports the IDF investigation which concluded 100 villagers had been killed. David Ben-Gurion gave the figure of 70-80. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports the village's mukhtar account that 455 people were missing following the al-Dawayima massacre, including 170 women and children."

By the end of 1948, the Israelis had established themselves as the main aggressors.
Everything beyond that is related to the ongoing seizure of land by Israel
It is utterly nonsensical to divorce the conflict since then from the predatory nature of the Israeli State
"All of the above were the result of attacks on the Jewish population of Palestine, or attacks or threat of attacks on Israel - and you are peddling the MYTH of Israel being an agressive expansionist State"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement_timeline
Whe have been the aggressors from day one - David Ben Gurion summes it up perfecctly
f I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: We took their land. It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care? Our God is not their God. There were anti-Semites, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was it their fault? They only see one thing: We came and stole their land. Why should they accept that?
Jewish Albert Einstein was a fairly brainy feller - he put the threat of Israel in a nutshell
"The following is a letter Albert Einstein sent to the New York Times in 1948, protesting the visit of Menachem Begin.

It is clear when reading this personal view of Einstein's, written at the time of Israel's formation, that his remarks about Jewish Zionist Terrorists are more harsh and pointed than anything written by today's journalists.

After seeing the world emerge from the Holocaust, Einstein was sickened by the exact same politics that continue to violate the rights of all non-Jews in the Holy Land. This, Israel has no right to do, yet with endless empowerment from American taxes, their inhumanity rules the day.

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948"

So far you have offered unlined "facts" and belligerent denial
How about some real evidence to your claims
Your mindless name-calling only serves to underline your ignorance
Are you really too stupid to see that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 17 - 01:00 PM

"That's an example of the typical rhetoric of Jew haters.!"
It is antisemitic to associate the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish Peole - didn'y you know that?
Mindless racist prick
Can't you find any more evidence on your "White Supremist site?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 17 - 05:28 PM

Shaw and Carroll posting more anti-Semitic dribble I see, good - more crops to harvest, they are such a dependable resource.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 17 - 03:55 AM

Steve Shaw - 12 May 17 - 11:56 AM

1: Well Shaw as you know of the existence of Haganah you should also know when it was formed and why it was formed - direct result of attacks by the Arabs of Palestine in 1920 and the failure of British Forces to protect the Jewish communities.

" After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv's leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year"

Irgun came into being in 1931 as a direct result of the Arab riots in 1929. It was a splinter group that was formed by Haganah members who believed that the best defence is a good offense - Haganah were constrained by the instruction to only defend communities and not initiate counterattacks against Arab gangs or their communities.

Haganah and Irgun assisted British Forces during the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt and formed a Jewish Brigade Group that fought the Nazis during the Second World War (Arafat's Uncle on the other hand sat the war out in Berlin as a guest of Adolf Hitler's and raised a Muslim SS Unit - there are photographs of him inspecting it in the Balkans)

On the declaration of independence Haganah and Irgun units formed the IDF. The experience they had gained during the Arab Revolt and during the Second World War proved invaluable to Israel in the 19948/1949 Arab War, which as previously stated was initiated by the Arabs who rejected the 1947 UN Two State Plan - IDF came about as a direct result of Arab aggression.

Lehi or Stern Gang was an extremely small group that split from Irgun in 1940. The split was caused by the British restricting Jewish immigration after the Arab Revolt. The groups aim was to drive the British out of Palestine by force. During it's operational life it was responsible for 48 assassinations (More than Haganah and Irgun combined). Those assassinated were, for the most part, Jews they considered to be traitors with the remainder being specifically targeted British Army and Police Officers. The ONLY time members of Lehi fought and killed Arabs Shaw was during the 1948 Arab/Israeli War that the Arabs had started.

2: What gratuitous aggression on the part of the IDF with regard to Sabra/Shatila Shaw?

3: As Keith A has stated use of cluster bombs was not illegal at the time and their use by the IDF to deny ground to Palestinian and Hezbollah "fighters" firing into Israel IS in direct response to aggression by an enemy. Funny you seem only to condemn the Israelis yet fail to condemn the Argentinians for recklessly mining the Falklands without recording positions, numbers or type, or the Russians for indiscriminately sowing millions of landmines and using cluster bombs in Afghanistan to deny ground to the Mujahideen.

4: Mordechai Vanunu as far as Israel was concerned was guilty of disseminating State Secrets, a traitor. Tell me Shaw where is your condemnation of the U.S.S.R. for the thousands of traitors they executed?

5: Could you please explain how a state can be held in defiance of a Treaty that it is not a signatory of? Could you please explain how it would be possible for a state who acquired it's nuclear capability in 1966 to be in defiance of a Treaty that did not come into existence until 1970?

6: What villages have been razed by bulldozers? Would they be "unrecognised settlements"? If so then the Israeli government has bulldozed illegal settlements of Jews and Arabs alike. If you decided entirely off your own bat to build a house on land you own down in Cornwall Shaw without proper planning authority, the Council would order you to tear it down, if you refused to do so they would come along and bulldoze it down then send you the bill for it. What's the difference? How does a Helicopter gunship raze a village to the ground and where and when was this done?

7: The schools deliberately targeted in Gaza. Were they the ones being used to fire rockets and mortars from? Or the ones being used to manufacture and store the rockets?

8: No condemnation of Egypt for this supposed deliberate impoverishment by blockade of a million and a half civilians Shaw? The solution is simple and has been on the table for rather a long time. Stop the attacks and recognise the right of the State of Israel and it's population to exist free from attack, or threat of attack. The second that that is done all restrictions are lifted.

9: The only people here nakedly "cleaning up" history Shaw are yourself and Carroll who consistently single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring the actions of others and who steadfastly refuse too accept, mention, or condemn acts of aggression and provocation directed against Israel and it's civilian population.

10: Funny how you can never, ever, manage to disprove, counter or refute any of those historical "facts" that that I keep coming out with to explode the myths, half-truths and clichéd misrepresentations that you and Jom are so fond of reeling out.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:01 AM

"Shaw and Carroll posting more anti-Semitic dribble"
You, in dismissing statements by Jews such as Einstein and Ben Gurion, are the antisimite here Bobad
How about crawling out from behind your anonymous barricade and offering some real arguments instead of the cowardly troll insults you havee become noted for
You want to claim antisemitism by us, have the balls and the decency to prove it
Your spineless behaviour only serves to underline the arrogant Israeli stance that has fucked up The Middle East and the dream of the Jewish Homeland.
You and your arrogantly strutting bully of a mate are a matched pair - both perfect examples of the nightmare that the dream of Israel has become under an administration that echoes the behaviour of those who sent six million Jews to their deaths - arrogant, blustering and cowardly.
Neither of you have shown a shred of decency and understanding of the human consequences of what is happening in Israel - neither of you give an indication that you are particularly interested.
You sneer at Jews who disagree with the regime and pass them off as "self-hating" or antisemitic
You have shown a racist hatred for non-Jews throughout all this, dredging some of the most racist right-wing hate sites for your quotes - sites like Muslim Watch and The White Supremist - the very type of people who instigated the Holocaust.
You sneer at "Lefties", yet it was people with your politics who set up the camps and the extermination chambers - and exterminated "lefties" along with Jews, Gypsies, and anybody who didn't fit in to their/your Reich
German right wing capitalism financed the Nazis and used Jews as slave labour - so feel free to call me a "leftie" any time you like; I'd rather be identified with the victims of Nazism rather than with their modern counterparts.
When my girlfriend's mother, a Holocaut survivor, said to me, "Never again, not to anybody", I didn't believe it could happen again.
Now, watching what is happening in Israel, and reading posts from inhuman twats like you, Teribus and Keith (and you evil bastards dare to refer to us as "a pack") I have come to realise that it looks like it could start all over again - last time it was the Jews, this time it's the Arabs.
I can't stop you trolling your cowardly insults from the safety of anonymity and distance, but I'm happy to make use of it as an example of it as an example of what Israel has become in the hands of your right-wing storm-troopers.
You want to prove any of us "Jew haters" - then do so with evidence - not cowardly insults.
It is not us who call Jews "self hating" or "antisemitic" - it is you, alongside every other right wing fascist piece of work in history, So please feel free to continue to defend the Israeli regime in the way you do - it saves us the trouble of dredging up other examples - why bother when we have a blustering bully, a terminal atrocity denier and their pet cowardly little worm troll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:46 AM

A lovely, measured defence of bunches of terrorists. Nice one, Teribus! 😂

So cluster bombs weren't illegal so that makes it ok to scatter the bomblets all over farmland to blow kids' feet off for decades, does it? What kind of man are you to defend that? I suppose you go into crowded lifts and fart your arse off. That isn't illegal either so that makes it all right, does it?

And I see we're back defending atrocities on the grounds that other countries do similar. Not very grown-up, that, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:02 AM

Steve,
What a trashy post.

Saying that requires know knowledge or wit.
Identifying actual errors does. Presumably more than you possess.

So cluster bombs weren't illegal so that makes it ok to scatter the bomblets all over farmland to blow kids' feet off for decades, does it?

No, but the danger was recognised by no-one, not just Israel, so why single them out.
They are still being used in Syria by Russian forces though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:53 AM

I have addressed all the points in your inhuman post many times ad nauseam and you should know by now that I don't join in with your hectoring quote-me games. I am not obliged to research every country's use of whatever armaments when we are discussing Israel's use of them, any more than I'm obliged to let little Jimmy off for looking up girls' skirts just because little Johnny stole little Lizzie's sweets. I've addressed the issue of the cluster bombs in this thread. Go and find it. Then find a crowded lift and fart like crazy. It's fine to do that because it isn't illegal, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 07:39 AM

"No, but the danger was recognised by no-one, not just Israel, so why single them out."
This is a list of the forces and armament used in Gaza from a 2012 report

ISRAEL
125,000 armed troops
500,000 armed reservists
11,000 armoured vehicles
4000 battle tanks
700 aircraft incl American F16 bombers
60 ships + 3 nuclear submarines
1000s of prohibited cluster bombs

Any State that uses cluster bombs is evil
Any state that SELLS CLUSTER BOMBS is equally evil

Incidentally
From the above report, this is a list of the forces and armaments used by the Palestinians
GAZA

20,000 armed militants
0 armoured vehicles
0 tanks
0 aircraft
0 ships + 0 submarines
0 cluster bombs
1000s Qassam and Grad rockets

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/4-myths-about-the-israeli-attack-on-gaza/#sthash.ytCytyBK.dpuf
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 11:30 AM

Steve,
I have addressed all the points in your inhuman post many times ad nauseam and you should know by now that I don't join in with your hectoring quote-me games.

You have had all those points answered ad nauseam, but you still post them so I still answer them.
Nothing "inhuman" in that.

I did not ask you to quote me on anything.
If I did, quote me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 11:35 AM

Jim,
Any State that uses cluster bombs is evil
Any state that SELLS CLUSTER BOMBS is equally evil

I agree, but back then their threat to innocent civilians was not recognised, so it is unfair to single out Israel.

Those who still buy, sell and use them should certainly be singled out for disapprobation.
Can we agree on that too?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 17 - 11:39 AM

I believe that the use Cluster Munitions is only prohibited by those countries that have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Their use by countries who are not signatories is not illegal.

Gaza is controlled by a terrorist organisation that brooks no opposition and does not believe in holding elections. By choice the leadership of those 20,000 men deliberately implemented a strategy of indiscriminate attacks that specifically targeted Israeli civilians. To engage in such a campaign and think for one nano-second that it would provoke no reaction from the Government responsible for the safety of those civilians is the height of imbecility. They knew full well that retribution would follow as sure as night follows day.

To engage in war is not a matter of equivalence. Israel has the right and the responsibility to employ every military, intelligence and law enforcement unit at its disposal to safeguard and protect its citizens - That sort of makes your list and your indignation irrelevant Jom. Biggest difference though Jom is this. While the IDF act to protect and preserve the lives of the population of Israel, Hamas acts in such a way as to deliberately put the lives of the population they are supposed to govern at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 12:50 PM

"I agree, but back then their threat to innocent civilians was not recognised, so it is unfair to single out Israel."
Do not be stupid Keith
Nobody is singling out Israel
I've just given you an example of Saudi using them and Britainn supplying them
A defence of pointing to others is totally mindless to defend Israel by doing so just shows that Israel is as bad as the worst – Saudi and Syria currently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:14 PM

While the IDF act to protect and preserve the lives of the population of Israel.....

To this I might add that the IDF, recognized as being the most moral army in the world, goes far beyond the norms of the rules of warfare, as set out in international humanitarian law, to avoid civilian casualties in war whilst the terrorist group Hamas, who instigate the wars, are committing war crimes by using their populace as human shields and storing and employing weapons and munitions from schools, hospitals and mosques and other civilian locations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:19 PM

"To this I might add that the IDF, recognized as being the most moral army in the world..."

By whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:31 PM

"o this I might add that the IDF, recognized as being the most moral army in the world"
According to Israel
"A new report based on testimonies of Israeli soldiers concludes the massive civilian death toll from last summer's Israeli assault on Gaza resulted from a policy of indiscriminate fire. The Israeli veterans group Breaking the Silence released testimonies of more than 60 Israeli officers and soldiers which it says illustrate a "broad ethical failure" that "comes from the top of the chain of command." More than 2,200 Palestinians were killed in the assault, the vast majority civilians. On Israel's side, 73 people were killed, all but six of them soldiers. During the 50-day operation, more than 20,000 Palestinian homes were destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced. We hear candid video testimonies from the soldiers and speak to former Israeli paratrooper Avner Gvaryahu, director of public outreach at Breaking the Silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:40 PM

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
Amnesty

HAARETZ


BRUTALITY


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7949152/Israeli-soldier-puts-photos-of-blindfolded-Palestinians-on-Facebook.html
Shades of Camp Zero

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:48 PM

the "principled" army
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:52 PM

MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:07 PM

By whom?

By people who know a fuck of a lot more about warfare than a couple of Jew haters on a folk music forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:11 PM

Well there you have it! Weasel words without backup! Come on, sonny - who said it? Bibi?? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:16 PM

Jim,
A defence of pointing to others is totally mindless to defend Israel by doing so just shows that Israel is as bad as the worst – Saudi and Syria currently

No, because when their danger to civilians was recognised, Israel stopped using and UK stopped selling.

Before the danger was known by anyone, how can you blame Israel, and only Israel, for not knowing it either.

Saudi, Syria and Russia are still using. That makes them much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:26 PM

Think it was Colonel Richard Kemp:

On October 16, 2009, British Colonel Richard Kemp testified regarding Israel's behaviour in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead (Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip in 2008-9 ), as part of the UN's evaluation of the Goldstone Report.  Colonel Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, who served with the UN and NATO, commanded British troops in Northern Ireland, led UK forces in Bosnia and Macedonia, participated in Gulf War 1, spent considerable time in Iraq during Gulf War 2,  and served on the UK's joint international commission on terrorism

I would imagine that he does know what he is talking about, certainly more so than Shaw or Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:42 PM

Isn't it wonderful after a week away to find Woodcock still spitting out his bile and venom.

Had you blood pressure checked recently Teriblossom?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:46 PM

Ah nice to see the hyena's, or is it the lapdog has arrived safe and sound.

What bile and venom are you referring to Raggy? Don't think that pointing folks towards facts counts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:29 PM

The danger to innocent civilians from cluster munitions has been glaringly obvious since time immemorial. This "they stopped using them once they realised the danger" is just about the biggest load of hilarious bollocks I've ever read here, which is saying something.

Nice appeal from authority from Teribus. Is that really the best you can dredge up?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:28 AM

What's the matter Shaw still chaffing at the fact that you cannot refute a single thing I have said?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:48 AM

"No, because when their danger to civilians was recognised, Israel stopped using and UK stopped selling."
I take it you mean "shelling" - Israel has a major weapons industry- they profit out of death as well as use them to slaughter civilians
They did not give up using them out of compassionate motives, they continued until to do so until they no longer needed to
Gaza remains an untried war crime and Israel has demanded the closing down of the international courts rather than face justice
They also used chemicals and anti-personnel weapons such as flechette missiles
These are serious war criminals comparable to the Assad regime.
"Colonel Richard Kemp:"
Kemp is a soldier and he gave a soldier's excuse for the killings - that the civilian deaths were a result of mistakes rather than war crimes - an excuse for massacres and needless slaughter that is as old as history.
Hi is a known associate of Mossad and what he said is as dependable as that fact indicates it to be.
Trust me - I'm a soldier - I don't think so.
In orer to be proven innocent Israel has to stand trial - and it would rather see the destruction of the international justice system than submit itself to international examination.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:41 AM

I just tell you what I think. Teribus. I don't subscribe to the Keith 'n' Bill Chuckle-free Brothers' game of go-on-quote-me-and-refute-me-if-you-dare. In any case I can leave it to you to get so tied up in your own bombast that you refute yourself without realising it all over the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:58 AM

Another claim with no substantive back up Shaw? God but you are so predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:51 AM

Silly Billy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:57 AM

Steve
This "they stopped using them once they realised the danger" is just about the biggest load of hilarious bollocks I've ever read here, which is saying something.

You are wrong and easily shown to be wrong. Munitions are by definition dangerous, but the specific danger of these to civilians was not at first recognised.
That is why no objection to them was ever made, and no militaries refused them until that danger was made evident.
There was then and only then a campaign against them and decent countries like Britain and Israel stopped using, stockpiling or supplying them.

Jim,
No , because when their danger to civilians was recognised, Israel stopped using and UK stopped selling."
I take it you mean "shelling" -

No. I meant selling.

Gaza remains an untried war crime.

Says who? Only enemies of Israel, gullible one.

They also used chemicals and anti-personnel weapons such as flechette missiles
They used no illegal weapons.

These are serious war criminals comparable to the Assad regime.
Says who? Only enemies of Israel, gullible one, and their record is far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:05 AM

"Another claim with no substantive back up Shaw? God but you are so predictable."
As predictable as your refusal to respond to given and well substantiated facts in defence of your own 'makie-ups'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:10 AM

Tell me Jom when have the Israelis deliberately targeted civilians with cluster munitions?

But here is something for you military geniuses to consider:

1 - In Gaza after all those thousands of unguided rockets and mortars had been fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilians did the IDF attack Gaza?

2 - Did those attacks involve IDF incursions into Gaza?

As we know the answers to both of those questions is YES then common sense will tell you that you do not litter the area you are about to send your troops into thousands of bomblets - to do that you'd have to be a complete and utter f**kin idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:14 AM

What "makie-ups" Jom? I can point to many of yours, and have done so in the past, you, Jom, have yet to identify one of mine and guess what? In this exchange you will remain true to form and fail once again to produce one single example.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:20 AM

So you drop a bomb that scatters mines over half a square kilometre, timesing that by the number of bombs you drop, and you "fail to realise that this presents mortal danger to innocent civilians" until one day the light dawns, eh? So the fact that 7000 civilians in Vietnam, mostly in the few years after the war, way before the invasion of Lebanon, were blown to pieces by unexploded cluster munitions (to quote just one example) never alerted the US and Israel that they were a menace to innocent civilians? You really are taking denial and fantasy to new heights, Keith. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:49 AM

"So you drop a bomb that scatters mines over half a square kilometre, timesing that by the number of bombs you drop"

Now why would you do that Shaw? Where would you do it?

Armed forces use a wide variety of munitions, they all have specific applications, "cluster munitions" have a number of functions

1 - Use against runways and airfields
2 - To deny an area to an enemy
3 - To obstruct or direct an enemy by firing them in front of your enemy's advancing troops

See that neither yourself, Shaw, or Jom have come up with any instances of the IDF using them against civilians.

As to Kemp giving "a soldiers answer"? Any chance he simply reported what he observed?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 07:21 AM

"I can point to many of yours, "
You keep saying that - none so far
You refuse toi link to anything you say so, on the basis of your track record, it is obvious you make them up as youi go along
You even caimed sniper ammuntion which Britain had supplied to Assad was 'the wrong size" after yo had denied the shipment and in spite of the fact that no ammunition sizes had ever been specified - a spectacular double "makkie up"
We know from Medecins Sans Frontieres reportsthat Israli oficers instructed hospital patients to remain where the were then opened fire of the hospital
We know that felchettes, and other fragment missed, along with white phosphorus, were regularly used on civilians, yet you produce the opinions of a soldier implicated with the Israeli regime to claim there were no atrocities
You ignore the comparisons of deaths and of military capability and continue to argue that Israel is the victim in all this
You ignore the fact that even the Imperial maps that were foisted on Palestine bear no resemblance to today's borders after expansion
Your whole argument is an agenda generated makie up
Now - want to have another try at producing mine?
This time try not to confuse those who disagree with you our as telling lies - it's a sign of your obvious megalomania
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 07:47 AM

"Any chance he simply reported what he observed?"
This is a summery of what Kemp "observed"
"I was in Israel for much of the summer 2014 Gaza conflict, specifically from 14 July – 8 August and from 27 August – 5 September. During these periods I met, was briefed by and questioned Israeli political leaders, senior officials and Israel Defence Force (IDF) soldiers from general officer down to private soldier. I spent a considerable amount of this time close to the Gaza border where I also met, was briefed by, questioned and observed many IDF officers and soldiers immediately before and after they had been in combat.

I was in Israel also for much of the Gaza conflict in 2012. I visited IDF units and held meetings with many IDF officers, government officials and political leaders before and since then. I have been acquainted with the IDF and the Israeli intelligence services for many years, both during and after my military service."

Lorra lorra balance and neutrality there, I would say!!!
The Times of Israel described Kemp as "supportive" - he certanly chose his informants carefully
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 08:32 AM

Some findings from an assessment of the 2014 Gaza conflict by a panel of MILITARY experts:

We   can   be   categorically   clear   that   Israel's   
conduct in the 2014 Gaza Conflict met and in
some respects exceeded the highest standards
we set for our own nations' militaries.    It is our
view that Israel fought an exemplary campaign,
adequately conceived with appropriately limited
objectives,   and   displaying   both   a   very   high   
level of   operational capability as well as a total
commitment to the Law of Armed Conflict.

It is further our view that in the overall conduct of
its campaign, the IDF not only met its obligations
under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often
exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in
the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied
its operation.

In many cases where the fighting
was concerned, this came at significant tactical
cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules
of   Engagement and it is obvious that instances
existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did
not attack lawful military objectives on account
of a deliberate policy of restraint.

It further
used its formidable intelligence capability in an
effort to contain its action as closely as possible to
Hamas's assets and protect the civilian population
amid which these were purposely and unlawfully
embedded. Intelligence is not infallible however,
nor is it possible to preclude completely preclude
civilian casualties through precautions enacted in
compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict

Despite the regrettable loss
of   innocent life and the damage to infrastructure
in Gaza our findings are clear in that the overall
outcome   of    the   campaign   in   Gaza   is   entirely   
consistent with the conduct of a professional armed
forces operating within the parameters of the Law
of Armed Conflict when faced with a scenario such
as Israel did in confronting Hamas.

Hamas not only flagrantly disregarded the
Law of Armed Conflict as a matter of course
as part of   its terrorist-army hybrid strategic
concept, but rather it abused the very protections
afforded   by   the   law   for   military   advantage,   
putting the civilian population of Gaza at great
risk.      Situating   its   operational   headquarters   
in   Gaza's   main   hospital,   the   entire   military
machinery of   Hamas was embedded in civilian
locations,   private   homes   and   a   plethora   of   
sensitive sites such as medical facilities, mosques
and schools.
These included facilities run by
the United Nations in multiple instances, from
which it must be concluded that the relevant
UN agencies are either compromised in their
relationship with Hamas or have temporarily lost
control of   the security of   their facilities.

Many
of   Hamas's actions clearly amount to serious
violations of the Law of Armed Conflict,
including war crimes identified by the United
Nations such as the summary execution of those
it accused of   collaborating with Israel.    Hamas
further engaged in actions that were designed to
interfere with the humanitarian assistance to its
own population.

Hamas not only indiscriminately targeted Israeli
civilians throughout the conflict with extensive
rocket fire, but willfully sought to draw the
IDF into a prepared stronghold amid Gaza's
civilian population. It is important to note that
Hamas actively sought the death of   its own
civilians as an advantageous reinforcement of its
strategic concept aimed at the erosion of Israel's
legitimacy.

No country would accept the threat against its
civilian population that these rockets present to Israeli
population centres.    Members of   the High Level
Military Group, many of whom had never visited the
country prior to our fact-finding visits were united
in   their   view   that   Israel's   efforts   were   entirely   
justified, appropriately conceived and lawfully carried
out, and necessary in the defence of   that country's
national security.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:07 AM

What military experts?



I didn't say they used them against civilians. I am saying that they are careless as the likely effects on civilians. Hundreds of civilians, including large numbers of children, have been killed or injured by cluster bomblets in southern Lebanon and continue to be so to this day. Last I heard, Lebanese mums and dads don't let their kids play on runways or airfields. Many of the injuries have occurred on farmland. The Israeli regime didn't give a shit, did they?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:12 AM

Your UNLINKED report came from unidentified "military experts" whose qualifications are totally unspecified, issued by the Israeli Government and published in 'The Jerusalem Post - neither their neutrality or their background research is identified
They could have been local milkmen and newspaper delivery boys, based on the information given.
Which is, of course, why you have not bothered providing a link
It is basically saying "Wot us - war criminals - not us Guv"
It makes the Kahan Whitewash Report on Sabra Shatla look like a ten year study - it doesn't even try to prove anything
First Richard Kemp - now this farce - you have to ne joking!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:18 AM

What military experts?

General Klaus Dieter Naumann (Germany) is the
former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr, the German
armed forces and served as Chairman of the NATO Military
Committee from 1996 to 1999.

General Vincenzo Camporini (Italy) is the former
Chief of Defence Staff of Italy. He served as Deputy Chief
of Defence General Staff and President of the Italian Centre
for High Defence Studies before being appointed Chief of
Staff of the Italian Air Force and subsequently Chief of
Defence General Staff.

Lieutenant General David A. Deptula (United States)
was the principal attack planner for the Desert Storm coalition
air campaign in 1991, served as Director of the Combined
Air Operations Center in Afghanistan and served as the first
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), Headquarters Air Force.

Admiral José María Terán (Spain) serves in the Office
of Strategic Assessment of the Minister of Defence of
Spain. A former Chief of the Joint Staff and Chief of the
Strategic Analysis Group, he has also served as Director for
Reorganisation of the Spanish Intelligence Service.

Major General Andrew James Molan (Australia)
served as the Chief of Operations for the Headquarters
Multinational Force in Iraq. He is a former Commander
of the Australian Defence College and has served as Adviser
to the Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force on Joint
Warfighting Lessons and Concepts.

Lieutenant General Kamal Davar (India) served as
the first Director General of the Defence Intelligence Agency
of India. A former Director-General, Mechanised Forces
at Army Headquarters, he has held a large number of high
ranking command posts in the Indian Army and served on
the Indian Military Training Team in Iraq.

Brigadier General Alain Lamballe (France) served
in the General Secretariat for National Defence as head of
the Southeast Asia and Europe sections as well as heading
the Central Liaison Mission for Assistance to Foreign
Forces. He is the former Director of the Department of
Security Cooperation of the OSCE Mission in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.

Colonel Richard Kemp (United Kingdom) was
Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and has
served in Iraq, the Balkans, South Asia and Northern
Ireland. He has led the international terrorism team at
the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee and served as
chairman of the strategic intelligence group for COBRA,
the UK national crisis management committee.

Colonel Vincent Alcazar (United States) served as a
fighter pilot in Operations Desert Storm and Southern Watch
as well as various other post 9/11 theatres. He subsequently
served in strategic roles at the Pentagon, the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency and at the U.S. embassy, Baghdad, Iraq.

Colonel Eduardo Ramirez (Colombia) is an
Advisor to the Congress of Colombia who served with the
Colombian National Police from 1987 until 2013. He was
formerly the Chief of Security Staff for President Uribe
of Colombia, as well as Chief of Section at the Judicial
and Criminal Directory of the National Police.

Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper (United States)
was Ambassador-at-large in charge of the US Secretary of
State's Office of War Crimes Issues. A former Presidential
envoy and adviser to the National Security Council he was
previously a war crimes prosecutor for the United Nations
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Rafael L. Bardají is the Executive Director of the
Friends of Israel Initiative and National Security Advisor to
Former President, José María Aznar. He formerly served in
the Government of Spain as the National Security Adviser
and in leadership positions in the Ministry of Defence.

Davis Lewin is the Rapporteur of the High Level Military
Group. He is the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and
Research at The Henry Jackson Society, a London based
Foreign and Defence Policy think tank.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 10:41 AM

Hi there bobad. That surely is the most impressive list of "local milkmen and newspaper delivery boys" that I've ever clapped eyes on. Quite a few seem to have had "hands on" combat command experience - their delivery rounds must have been in some rough neighbourhoods. In any event they would all certainly have been able to recognise what they were there to observe - more so than our resident clowns Shaw & Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:12 AM

There is not a shred of evidence in this "report" as to who was asked and how the investigation was carried out
The "independence" of the enquiry is firmly established by the inclusion of Richard Kemp - who, by his own admission, has submitted a similar whitewash while interviewing only members of the Israeli armed forces and Israeli politicians, and who has, again by his own admission, has had a long term relationship with Mossad.
There is no indiaction that they have been selected on their knowledge of the conflict, only on their connection with Israel
The statement opens by making clear that the committee are intentt on exonerating Israel
"No country would accept the threat against its Civilian population that these rockets and tunnels present to Israeli population centers.ا"
The enquiry was supposed to be how the incursion was conducted and whether       the Israelis were guilty of committing war crimes NOT THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF THE PALESTINIAN CONFLICT yet they state qqite clearly that they are not independent (as claimed), on this issue, but have taken Israel's side from day one.
The enquire had no business to expand its brief to include the ongoing conflict, but it made it the first statement of the report.
About as "Independent" as Richard Kent, I would say
The local milkman might have done a better job in covering his tracks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:29 AM

Ah yes, the bold red screaming of cultivated indignation makes it's appearance once again as his lies and deceit are laid bare.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:37 AM

So what organisation were these experts working for? Who commissioned the report? Which of the people in your list contributed what? Why are you being so evasive about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:44 AM

"Ah yes, the bold red screaming of cultivated indignation makes it's appearance once again as his lies and deceit are laid bare."
I assume we cross posted
Answer the points?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:45 AM

Steve and Jim,
"To this I might add that the IDF, recognized as being the most moral army in the world..."

By whom?

You have been given an impressive list of senior military experts from many countries.
Challenging their credibility just makes you look ridiculous.
Can you produce any credible sources who challenge their view, or is it just you two?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:03 PM

I'm not challenging anything. I'm asking who commissioned the report, what their umbrella organisation was and which of them wrote what. The report has no credibility until those questions are properly answered. The fact that the report was published in the Jerusalem Post requires those questions to be answered so that we can be sure there is no bias. Are you arguing with that? If you are, what have got to hide?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:04 PM

you got to hide

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:40 PM

Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 07:21 AM

Complete and utter bullshit Jom - your stock in trade.

Your claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold weapons to Assad.

The Truth is: They did no such thing.

Your claim: You refuse to link to anything.

The Truth is: Links were supplied related to the following:

1: Details of types of weapons used by the Syrian Armed forces and Syrian Police units (They are Russian, former Warsaw Pact and Chinese)

2: Details of 7.62mm ammunition used by NATO (L1A1 SLR, AG3, LMG, GMPG) and details of 7.62 ammunition used in the AK-47 and its derivatives (The NATO round is 12mm too long for the AK-47 magazine and chamber)

3: News paper articles referring to an export licence being issued in 2009 but nothing related to any shipment ever having been made subsequent to the licence being issued.

Your Claim: That the "weapons" supplied by the British Government were being used to kill civilians in Homs in 2012.

The Truth is: No weapons sold, ALL export licences related to trade with Syria were revoked in the Autumn of 2010.

Your Claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold chemical weapons materials to Assad.

The Truth is: Between 2004 and 2009 chemicals required in the manufacture of toothpaste and cosmetics were sold to two companies in Syria. Investigation by BIS into those export orders showed that the manufacturing records of the products made by those companies tallied with the quantities of chemical supplied - which means that none of the chemicals supplied could have been syphoned off and used to make chemical weapons.

Your Claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold electrical equipment to Assad that was used to torture opponents of the regime. You also claimed that this had been stated in a report by NGO.

The Truth is No such equipment was supplied and there was no mention of British supplied equipment being used to torture prisoners of the Assad regime. Copies of the specific report referred to by Carroll were linked to and the relevant extracts cut'n'pasted into the text of the post refuting his claims.
   
"We know from Medecins Sans Frontieres reportsthat Israli oficers instructed hospital patients to remain where the were then opened fire of the hospital"

We know nothing of the sort. I have searched for this incident and found nothing even remotely like it. I did find a report of an incident where a MSF spokesperson detailed a fictitious account of IDF soldiers firing on civilians waving white flags - a report that MSF had to publicly retract. MSF operates inside Gaza and it says exactly what Hamas tells it to say same as UNRWA.

We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Protective Edge in 2014.

We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012.

We know that white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009 and that "Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza was technically legal under existing international humanitarian laws" (Mark Cantora examining the legal implications of the use of white phosphorus munitions by the IDF, published in 2010 in the Gonzaga Journal of International Law). The IDF have not used it since.

Flechettes have been used since the First World War. They are a recognised and "legal" anti-personnel weapon:

"During the invasion in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, numerous human rights groups documented the IDF'S use of flechette munitions and declared this use to be against international humanitarian law, due to the imprecise nature of flechettes. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, IDF tanks fired six anti-personnel munitions at the town of Khuz'a on July 17, resulting in the injury of one Palestinian woman"

"You ignore the comparisons of deaths and of military capability and continue to argue that Israel is the victim in all this"

Damn right, as previously stated war is not an exercise in equivalence. Had there been no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli response - It really is as simple as that

"You ignore the fact that even the Imperial maps that were foisted on Palestine bear no resemblance to today's borders after expansion"

And you ignore the fact that by rejecting the 1947 UN Two State Plan there are no recognised borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:06 PM

I see that the findings of the members of the High Level Military Group are not being challenged which is as it should be as the facts of the conflict as presented are mostly a matter of public record. As to which side was or was not operating within the parameters of the Law of Armed Conflict, familiarizing yourself with said Law would be more germane to the discussion than trying to dig for something with which to discredit the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM

We've been over this over and over again
None of this has been subtantiated as "lies"
Typical is this
"Your claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold weapons to Assad."
No I did not Keith said "a few sniper rifles" when I had specified ammunition
Made up bullying shit
Your links were supplied to claims that had not been made
Nobody ever specified what type of ammunition was sent just that it had been licences
You baseed your entire argument on unstated size - then you went on to invent five more seasons
"We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012."
We "now nothing of the sort - just tat Israel makes a HABIT of using the stuff
You are setting up arguments that have not been made
Britain ws internationally condemned fro selling Chemicals to Assad
The fact you coundn't find a reference to the hospital incident is your obvious unfamilarity to finging links as you don't do it often
I produced the report of it at the time complete with links
I'm fucked it I'm going to succumb to you playing Keith's card an denying already given evidence
Go fuck yourself
Is there really any point in continuing this load of makie ups?
NoThere is not one single lie here as thee wasn't lat time you rehashed old arguments you had been shot down in flames on
"You have been given an impressive list of senior military experts from many countries."
And you have been given the facts that they produced a totally biased report in favour of Israel by stating their bias in the first sentence
You may find that "impressive"
"Challenging their credibility just makes you look ridiculous."
They challenge themselves by letting the cat out of the bag in the first line
That's what I call "ridiculous"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:46 PM

Hey Raggy - Example of Jim Carroll spitting out his bile and venom.

Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM

Bet you don't comment on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:20 PM

"We know that white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009 "
AND AGAIN
one more time
wWe know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012."
PILAR OF DEFENCE
"The Truth is: Between 2004 and 2009 chemicals required in the manufacture of toothpaste and cosmetics"


BRITAIN SELLS SARIN TO ASSAD

Don't know much, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:27 PM

One of the things I love about you pair is you don't seem to mind humiliating yourselves in public
It saves the rest of us a hell of a lot of effort
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:54 PM

"Had there been no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli response"
Just the continuation of land stealing - except of course, attacks on Palestinians started the day Britain steamed out
You have been given Einstein's comments on the massacres of civilians - fated 1949 - no rockets then - just people crouching in their homes as hand grenades were thrown through the windows.
Poor, defenceless Israel eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:03 PM

Ehmmm Jom I do wish that you would read the newspaper articles you provide links for.

On the 14th May, 1948 five Arab nations declared war on Israel - Israel DID NOT declare war on them. Could that possibly have had any bearing on those attacks you mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:32 PM

He has become completely crazed by his hatred, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:50 PM

Jom - The Daily Record - AKA - Scotland's National Comic

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:42 PM

Who commissioned the report, what organisation were they working for and which of them wrote what? Why was it published in the Jerusalem Post? Was it published anywhere else? Why are you being evasive?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 08:08 PM

Nope, not evasive at all. You have all the information required to find everything available pertaining to the report. It's not my fault if you are too lazy or incompetent to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:05 PM

Why can't you tell this forum who commissioned the report and why it was released to the Jerusalem Post? Where else was it published, if anywhere? Why have you provided no link to this report? Who were these military experts working for? How were they selected, and by whom? You went to some lengths to provide the biographies of the soldiers in question, so why can't you answer these really simple questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 02:42 AM

"Jom - The Daily Record - AKA - Scotland's National Comic"
The report appears is available from MANY SOURCES
Must be humiliating to find that "Scotland's National Comic" knows more than you do
"You have all the information required to find everything available pertaining to the report."
Yup, the fact that they are biased employees of the Israeli regime being the most significant
I can't blue clickie this statement from Israeli soldiers on the ground who have now formed themselves into an opposition to the regime (Breaking the Silence) so I may as well put it up in full.
I'm sure each and every one of them must be "self-hating Jews".
Jim Carroll

'FIRE AT EVERY PERSON': ISRAELI SOLDIERS REVEAL THEY WERE ORDERED TO SHOOT TO KILL IN GAZA COMBAT ZONES – EVEN IF TARGETS MAY HAVE BEEN CIVILIANS
Israeli campaign group Breaking the Silence interviews more than 60 members of the Israeli army, air force and navy, including soldiers and officers
The Israeli military deliberately pounded civilian areas in the Gaza Strip with incessant fire of inaccurate ordinance during last year's war against Hamas and was at best indifferent about casualties among the Palestinian population.
Those are the conclusions of a report complied by Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that has spent the eight months since the end of the war, known as Operation Protective Edge, interviewing more than 60 members of the Israeli army, air force and navy, including soldiers and officers up to the rank of major.
The service personnel paint a picture that runs counter to official Israeli military claims that the surgical operation – which became a full-blown conflict after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and murdered in the occupied West Bank - took great care to avoid civilian casualties and that Gaza's already fragile infrastructure was not unnecessarily targetted.
International critics of Israeli tactics during the seven-week conflict have argued that the army, the IDF, and the country's other forces, responded disproportionately to rocket attacks from groups such as Hamas. This, they say, led to 2,220 Palestinians being killed, according to UN figures, the vast majority of them civilians.
There were seven civilian deaths on the Israeli side of the border as a result of rockets fired from inside the Gaza Strip by militant groups. A total of 66 Israeli military personnel were killed. Those Palestinian militants firing rockets across the border could not possibly have known where they were going to land.
This latest report by Breaking the Silence comes not only from within Israel itself, but includes more than 100 testimonies from soldiers who took part in the campaign.
The testimonies include examples of the acts of individual soldiers, including the shooting dead of civilians where those providing evidence say a more measured approach could have been taken. Others talk of incidents where confusion in the midst of a military campaign led to lethal decisions being made when there were other courses of action. A large number of soldiers maintain that the way in which the war was conducted was reasonable, but have decided to speak out against particular decisions or practices.
More worryingly, the report which runs to 240 pages, also details policies and norms – some of which came directly from IDF high command, which Breaking the Silence claims are systematic and led explicitly to greater loss of life and more damage.
"While the testimonies include pointed descriptions of inappropriate behavior by soldiers in the field, the more disturbing picture that arises from these testimonies reflects systematic policies that were dictated to IDF forces of all ranks and in all zones," the report says.
"The guiding military principle of 'minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians,' alongside efforts to deter and intimidate the Palestinians, led to massive and unprecedented harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout."
Chief among Breaking the Silence's findings is that the IDF watered down the rules of engagement such that any person in a combat zone was considered an enemy threat.
"Many of the soldiers testified that the rules of engagement they were provided with before the ground incursion into Gaza were unclear and lenient. The soldiers were briefed by their commanders to fire at every person they identified in a combat zone, since the working assumption was that every person in the field was an enemy," Breaking the Silence claims.
One solider, a First Sergeant in the IDF's engineering unit who was sent to Gaza City, said: "The briefing on rules of engagement was [to open fire at], 'Anything you think you should [open fire at]… Anyone you spot that you can be positive is not the IDF.' The only emphasis regarding rules of engagement was to make sure you weren't firing at IDF forces, but other than that, 'Any person you see.' From the very start they told us, 'Shoot to kill.' As far as the IDF was concerned, there wasn't supposed to be any civilian population there."
The Israeli air force dropped thousands of leaflets on areas it was preparing to attack, but according to the testimonies, it was assumed that once these leaflets had been distributed, anyone left would be from Hamas, or one of the other militant groups that took part in the war.
Another first sergeant, from an infantry division operating northern Gaza, said that he was told that, "if it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: You're in a motherf***ing combat zone. A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there's anyone there who doesn't clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person."
A captain, who didn't want his unit to be publicised, said: "During the briefing with the battalion commander on the night of the incursion, he was asked what the rules of engagement were, how we conduct ourselves, whom we shoot and whom we don't. What he said was – and this was the general gist of things – 'We are entering a war zone.' Meaning, what we prepared for during training – combat in urban areas. The IDF distributed flyers informing the residents of the areas we were entering, and that anyone remaining in the area was in effect sentencing themselves to death. That's what was said."
Gaza, measuring about 40km by 10km, is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth with about 1.8 million residents. It is inconceivable that, even at a time of war, entire civilian populations could move to different areas of the strip. Moreover, the crossings between Gaza and Israel, and Gaza and Egypt, were for the most part closed to civilians during the war, meaning that civilians were unable to leave the enclave.
Another central claim by the Israelis was that buildings targetted by its bombers received a "knock at the door," before they were destroyed. In practice, this was a small missile that caused only marginal damage to a building. The suggestion was that places being used by Palestinian fighters as command centres would receive a warning before they were destroyed, allowing civilians to leave.
During this war, this policy was lauded by the Israelis as a sign that civilian casualties were being kept to a minimum.
"I do remember there was this one house of five or six stories in Khirbet Khuza'a. I remember there was 'hot' intel [sic] data on a meeting between militants there," said one of the soldiers quoted in the report.
"The head of the cell was there for sure, and a decision was made to 'knock on the building's roof,' … and then immediately after that drop a bomb on it."
Asked by Breaking the Silence what he means by "immediately," the soldier replied: "Not enough time for everyone to leave. Somewhere between 30 seconds and one minute."
The bombing began on 8 July last year, nine days before Israeli forces entered the Palestinian enclave. Whole areas of Gaza, particularly Shuja'iyya and Beit Hanoun, were flattened during the campaign. Other military personnel interviewed by Breaking the Silence admit that this was part of a deliberate effort by the IDF, and say that inaccurate weapons were used to bombard neighbourhoods before ground troops arrived. "… shells, shells, shells. A suspicious structure, an open area, a field, a place where a tunnel shaft could be – fire, fire, fire. There was a period of about five days from the moment when we were first called in for duty until there was a ground incursion. Throughout that entire time, fire."
Breaking the Silence has specifically condemned the IDF for the use of what it describes "statistical weapons" – mortars and other artillery that are almost impossible to aim accurately. In such a densely populated area, and where homes are built on top of each other, collateral damage was inevitable, the group argues.
In pictures: Israel-Gaza conflict - summer 2014
"In practice, during the preliminary shelling, the army pounded populated areas throughout the Strip with artillery shells in order to scare off enemy combatants who were in the area, and at times also to urge the civilian population to flee," Breaking the Silence say.
Israel won plaudits from its allies in London and Washington for the war was conducted. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, the United States' most senior military officer said in November last year that, "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties".
Last week, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, David Cameron made one of his strongest defences of the Israeli position yet.
Using a phrase that was coined by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister said that it was "important to speak out" about standing by Israel and said there was an "important difference" between Israel's use of weapons to defend itself and Hamas' use of them "to defend its weapons".


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fire-at-every-person-you-see-israeli-soldiers-reveal-they-were-ordered-to-shoot-to-kill-in-gaza-even-10223427.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 17 - 03:02 AM

UN Watch - a Geneva-based non-governmental organization whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter". It is an accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council and an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

Their report was presented to the UNHCR.

Not just the Jerusalem Post Shaw. Commentary from the group has appeared in BBC (Human rights and wrongs at the UN), Al Jazeera (Debate rages over UN rights council), Reuters (UN urges China to protect human rights), Washington Post (Speaking Truth to the UN Human Rights Council), Agence France-Presse (UN Rights Council divided over Sri Lanka), Voice of America (UN Human Rights Council Candidates raise concerns), The Jerusalem Post (Gold v Goldstone), Fox News (US taxpayers pay millions to keep despots safe at the UN), JTA (UN Watchdog slams religious defamation resolution), and others.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 04:16 AM

And you continue to ignore the fact that the committee declared their support for Israeli policy in their very first statement
Had this committee been asked to appear in a court of law it would have been forced to refuse because of their obvious bias in support of the accused.
Bizarrely, at no time have any of these people interviewed the victims of these event which indisputably took place; Richard Kent made that quite clear
It is utter nonsense not to interview all sides in an enquiry
"Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM"
You have not answered one single pint in this posting - all you are able to do is disparage it - no answers, just mindless insults - your stock-in-trade

"UN Watch"
Depends where you go for an opinion
You carefully selected the good bits from this Wiki descripion while ignoring the relevant information.
"Ian Williams, former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association[67] and author of The UN For Beginners,[68] wrote in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007 that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also accused UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called "manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians."

The American journalist and political commentator Phyllis Bennis described UN Watch as a "small Geneva-based right-wing organisation" that is "hardly known outside of UN headquarters". She stressed that "undermining and delegitimising" Richard Falk through "scurrilous accusations" has been an "obsession of UN Watch" when he became Special Rapporteur.

Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 05:08 AM

I didn't ask who it was "presented to." I asked who commissioned the report and I asked who the umbrella organisation was that selected the members of the reporting group. Unless they selected themselves, of course...The suspicion, well-founded in my view in the absence of answers to these questions, is that the report is a put-up job. Answer the questions honestly and the suspicion will dissipate. All I want to know is that the report is balanced and unbiased. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 06:43 AM

Quite a lot to wade through HERE on Palestine and Israel from Human Rights Watch
I suppose it will be met enthusiastic response from the atrocity appeasers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:40 AM

the report is a put-up job.

So your only reply is that they are all lying.
All those senior officers from the armies of several democratic nations.
It is much easier to believe that you two have been duped by all the propaganda from Israel's enemies.

Is this a lie? It has been reported by many others.

"Hamas not only flagrantly disregarded the
Law of Armed Conflict as a matter of course
as part of   its terrorist-army hybrid strategic
concept, but rather it abused the very protections
afforded   by   the   law   for   military   advantage,   
putting the civilian population of Gaza at great
risk.      Situating   its   operational   headquarters   
in   Gaza's   main   hospital,   the   entire   military
machinery of   Hamas was embedded in civilian
locations,   private   homes   and   a   plethora   of   
sensitive sites such as medical facilities, mosques
and schools. "

The report does not specify what actions IDF took, but we know they sent warning of attacks by text message, even though that reduced the effectiveness of the attack. Also, roofs were hit with dummy munitions before the live attack.

"It is further our view that in the overall conduct of
its campaign, the IDF not only met its obligations
under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often
exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in
the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied
its operation.

In many cases where the fighting
was concerned, this came at significant tactical
cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules
of   Engagement and it is obvious that instances
existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did
not attack lawful military objectives on account
of a deliberate policy of restraint."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:47 AM

That is a complete and completely dishonest misrepresentation, so typical of you. You have removed all the conditionality from the comment I made:

"The suspicion, well-founded in my view in the absence of answers to these questions, is that the report is a put-up job. Answer the questions honestly and the suspicion will dissipate. All I want to know is that the report is balanced and unbiased. Simple."

I invite you to negate the suspicion by telling us who convened the committee, who selected its members and who commissioned the report. We now have three of you evading these simple questions. We want to know that the report is balanced and unbiased. No more, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:53 AM

From your big paste job Jim,

"confusion in the midst of a military campaign led to lethal decisions being made "
That happens in any conflict.

" A large number of soldiers maintain that the way in which the war was conducted was reasonable, but have decided to speak out against particular decisions or practices."
Fair enough.

"Israel won plaudits from its allies in London and Washington for the war was conducted. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, the United States' most senior military officer said in November last year that, "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties".
Last week, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, David Cameron made one of his strongest defences of the Israeli position yet.
Using a phrase that was coined by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister said that it was "important to speak out" about standing by Israel and said there was an "important difference" between Israel's use of weapons to defend itself and Hamas' use of them "to defend its weapons"."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:54 AM

Are the FACTS presented in the conclusions in dispute and are they in violation of the LOAC or not. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 07:54 AM

Steve,
who convened the committee, who selected its members and who commissioned the report.

I do not know, but there is no reason to believe they all lied anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:33 AM

This was presented to us as an official report by a committee of senior army men. All I want to know is how they were selected, who they were selected by and by whom the report was commissioned. If you can't answer those simple questions the whole thing smacks of a concerted attempt to whitewash the IDF's behaviour in Gaza. Jim has provided an alternative, detailed account that completely conflicts with yours. We know who produced it, we know the motivation for its production and we know why it was produced. It's credentials are transparent, whether you accept its content or not. So far, you cannot produce equivalent credentials for yours. Must dash.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:38 AM

Do you think they are all lying?
If not, why do your questions matter?
What difference would it make.

You asked who said it, and you were told.
Now you are just wriggling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:41 AM

Do you dispute the facts as presented or not......simple, or are you just scrambling to find some reason to discredit the report which is your and Carroll's usual tactic when presented with facts that demolish your entrenched prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 08:47 AM

RE. Breaking the Silence

To treat soldiers' testimonies of the exception as reality is misleading, and particularly problematic when outsiders use them to vilify Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.662860

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 09:03 AM

Breaking the Silence…has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classed as a 'human rights organization.'

-Amos Harel in Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 09:06 AM

From Colonel Richard Kemp's SUBMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON THE 2014 GAZA CONFLICT:

    Before a target could be attacked at least two separate and independent intelligence sources had to verify that it was a legitimate military target. Intelligence includes human sources, aerial surveillance, ground surveillance and communications intercept.

    Each separate aerial attack mission had to be personally authorised by the Commander of the Israeli Air Force or one of his deputies, at least one of whom had to be present in the operations centre throughout the conflict. Authorisation was also subject to legal advice.

    To confirm whether or not civilians were in the target area surveillance had to be conducted by both manned combat aircraft and unmanned air vehicle (drone), the latter enabling greater visual recognition.

    If surveillance or other intelligence sources confirmed the presence of civilians, or the presence of civilians was suspected, one or more of a series of measures was taken to warn the civilians before the attack could go ahead. These measures were:

       Leaflet drop.

       Broadcast radio message.

       Phone call.

       Text message.

       Warning via UN.

       An additional measure was the use of a specially designed harmless air-dropped munition known as 'knock on the roof' which was dropped on buildings to make a loud percussion and to warn those inside of an impending attack.

    Further surveillance was then conducted to confirm the civilians had left the target area. If they had not the attack would not be carried out until they had.

    Once a pilot was authorised to attack he had authority – and it was his duty – to abort the attack if he had reason to believe civilians were present when he made his attack run.

    Pilots utilising lazer-guided munitions were required to identify a safe open area in advance so that if civilians were identified in the target zone even after the missile was launched, it could be diverted in flight to the safe area.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 09:53 AM

I do dispute the facts as presented. They don't ring true, they reek of a whitewash and they conflict with other accounts from IDF soldiers on the ground. I will withdraw that criticism as soon as you can convince me that the commissioners of the report were neutral and independent of pressure from Israel, that you tell me who the commissioners are and that you tell me how the committee was selected and by whom. That way I can decide whether the report is likely to be balanced and neutral. The more you dance around this instead of providing straightforward, honest answers to my perfectly reasonable questions, the more suspicious the whole thing looks. And that includes your advocacy. You have form when it comes to providing information from extremely biased sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 10:12 AM

I do dispute the facts as presented.

Unfortunately for you the facts as presented were widely and extensively reported on by reporters on the scene and backed up with copious video footage so dispute away as expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 10:48 AM

You've been presented with another body of facts that conflicts with yours. You know where those come from, from actual IDF soldiers with first-hand knowledge of the fighting. I want to know where yours come from. I want to know whether they are neutral, unbiased and unconnected with the Israeli regime. Either you don't want to say because it will blow your argument out of the park or you don't know but want to advocate them anyway because they suit your agenda. If you really want people to trust your sources, you have to reveal, chapter and verse, precisely what the source is. I'm sure that it would have been possible to make up a committee from allies of the Nazi High Command to tell us how perfectly the German army behaved. So who commissioned the report? Who decided who was going to be on the committee? What were the links with Israel? This isn't hard, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 17 - 11:16 AM

Neither Shaw or Carroll are very good at joining up the dots. Both firmly believe that anyone making a statement, or comment, must fully substantiate what they say. The same rule however never seems to apply to them.

Now in the case of UN Watch, whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter". I would have thought it natural and logical for that NGO to monitor the work of any UN Committee. NOBODY has to commission any such monitoring operation, in fact it is important that it is not compelled by any outside organisation. The UNHCR is one commission UN Watch has monitored closely. UN Watch questions its impartiality and its bias, so when the UNHCR were asked by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to investigated the conduct of operations in Gaza UN Watch did the same.

The UNHCR settled on the following personnel to conduct this investigation:

Head of the mission - Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur in 2004.

Desmond Travers, a former colonel in the Irish Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

There was trouble over the mandate of this investigation from the outset as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation only requested that the Commission only investigate the actions and operations of the IDF. To his credit Richard Goldstone refused to accept the appointment until the remit was widened to include the other combatants, this was done informally.

So you have a team undertaking an investigation on military operations that consists of three jurists and one professional soldier with no combat command experience.

The UN Watch Team detailed by bobad would be proposed and approved by the directing board of UN Watch. A much larger team with greater experience and capability when it comes to assessing and analysing military operations than the team put forward by the UNHCR.

"Critics of the Goldstone report claimed that it contained methodological failings, legal and factual errors, and falsehoods, and devoted insufficient attention to the allegations that Hamas was deliberately operating in heavily populated areas of Gaza.

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 17 - 11:25 AM

Is that the same UN watch that has as a founding principle that the U.N is ipso facto anti-semitic, Mr. T?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 11:38 AM

Is that the same UN watch that has as a founding principle that the U.N is ipso facto anti-semitic, Mr. T?

Seeing as how the outgoing UN secretary general made it a point to condemn the UN's anti-Israel bias I should think that UN Watch has a legitimate reason to monitor it. If you read their reports you would see that they don't make things up they simply report on what's on public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:11 PM

Oh, and UN Watch's mandate isn't limited to Israel, they have reported on the UN's performance in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and America also.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:23 PM

Is that the same UN Watch that has as a founding principle that the U.N is ipso facto anti-semitic, Mr.B?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:36 PM

UN Watch has been widely criticised for pro-Israel bias and for suppressing any criticism of the behaviour of Israeli forces in Gaza. The largest press agency in the world called it a pro-Israel lobby group. No getting away from it. Reports concerning Israel from that source cannot be remotely considered to be free from bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:44 PM

"The UN Watch Team detailed by bobad would be proposed and approved by the directing board of UN Watch. A much larger team with greater experience and capability when it comes to assessing and analysing military operations than the team put forward by the UNHCR."

If the organisation that appoints the committee is biased in favour of Israel, which it is, then it doesn't matter how much military know-how and experience the members have. Hundreds of generals in Hitler's armed forces had plenty of experience and know-how. The committee members are institutionally biased towards producing the findings that the committee wants to hear. It really isn't hard, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 17 - 12:53 PM

I do dispute the facts as presented.

On what grounds?

they conflict with other accounts from IDF soldiers on the ground.

Quote one then, and then explain why all those senior officers from the armies of all those democratic countries would lie about it.

The largest press agency in the world called it a pro-Israel lobby group.

So what. The Secretary General of the UN confirmed its anti-Israel bias, so defending Israel from it does not show bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 17 - 01:56 PM

The report is a blatant whitewash. There is no way you'll ever see it but there it is. The IDF killed hundreds of children in a very short time. That's just for starters, Keith. White phosphorus was used. No mention. Read the report that Jim quoted. Tell me those dozens of soldiers are all liars. Nothing they related is contained in your whitewash report. Not a hint. Nothing. It is utterly unbelievable. A put-up job from a biased organisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 17 - 02:24 AM

"The committee members are institutionally biased towards producing the findings that the committee wants to hear."

So does that hold good for UN HRC and UNRWA Shaw? Both noted for their anti-Israeli bias? I know how much you believe in there being one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.

Another fly in the ointment as far as your statement goes of course is that those people mentioned who actually undertook the fact finding missions were not members of either UN HRC or UN Watch, so I would be delighted to hear from you exactly how they could possibly be described as being institutionally biased.

Now if you were called upon to put a team together to monitor, examine and analyse the conduct of a military operation who would you select? We know that your pal Jom in his wisdom would pick milkmen and paperboys, dying to hear who you would pick.

Desmond Travers (Colonel Irish Army retired) the UN HRC Team's one and only military expert made mistake after mistake and started out on the assumption that Israel was guilty. One independent military expert (Tim Collins Colonel Irish Rangers retired) who looked into a claim that a mosque had been used to store weapons (A claim that Travers dismissed out of hand) had nothing to do with UN Watch or their team of experts, read accounts of the strike that hit the mosque and the eye-witness accounts of those who observed it and then went to the site and examined it where he found obvious signs of sympathetic secondary explosions inside the building. Now then Shaw if the Israelis only struck the building once - you tell me what caused the secondary explosions? As I know you will not offer up any response to that question I will tell you. For there to have been secondary explosions there would have to be munitions or explosives stored inside the building when it as hit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 17 - 04:50 AM

As he's a military man I suppose we are obliged to think that he's above all suspicion of bias. That seems to be your current theme, cap-doffer-in-chief. Well, as they say, the first casualty of war...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 17 - 05:30 AM

So Shaw as you seem to think that anybody connected to the military are all biased born liars who is it that you would select to monitor, examine and analyse the execution and conduct of any given military operation? Possibly you'd side with Jom and opt for milkmen and paperboys.

Bias in military thinking is extremely dangerous. Those who believe in their own superiority and who underestimate their enemy usually live to bitterly regret their error - history, had you read it, is absolutely littered with examples.

My own experience and I daresay the experience of the members of this forum who have served in the armed forces will tend toward a marked objectivity in thinking that is applied to any problem given to the armed forces from straightforward military problems to humanitarian support in disaster areas - neither of which, judging by what you write, you have the foggiest notion about. Your world outside your immediate circle appears to be made up of left-wing, tooth-sucking, ideological stereotypes who bear no resemblance to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 17 - 06:26 AM

I don't think that at all and I have given you no reason to make such a stupid assertion.

The soldiers in Jim's piece were in the thick of the conflict. Collins visited the war zone a year after the fighting. You dismiss first-hand accounts by five dozen IDF men on the ground in favour of a single establishment man, far removed from the conflict, a man avidly sought by both the Tories and the Ulster Unionists for their ranks, a man, let's face it, far more likely to side with the Israeli regime than with the Palestinians. He gave a lovely little-Englander speech to his men at the start of the disastrous Iraq invasion, full of purple prose, failing to see the wrongs of it, unlike millions of the rest of us, who couldn't believe what was happening. He has shown himself to be just as capable of misjudgement as anyone else, even working with a fraudulent reporter at the Beeb. I'm not saying this to blacken his name. I'm sure he's a very fine man and a damn good soldier. I'm saying this as a corrective to your rather sycophantic appeal to authority in presenting him to us as a man of flawless and inviolable integrity. He is not that man. It's very amusing to see how your exceptionally sharp critical faculties are always immediately blunted, positively disembowelled, by anyone coming from the establishment. You've clearly been taking lessons from Keith.

As for Judge Goldstone, he made mistakes that he has admitted to. But ask yourself why Israel, if their behaviour has been as saintly as described in the UN Watch report, absolutely refused to cooperate with him right from the outset. And, whatever you think of this alleged self-hating Jew, just consider how he's changed the game for Israel. Their military escapades are under scrutiny like never before, to the benefit of everyone in the region, as a consequence of his report, no matter how flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 17 - 12:35 PM

Steve Shaw - 16 May 17 - 06:26 AM

OK bit by bit:

I don't think that at all and I have given you no reason to make such a stupid assertion.

Well here is the exchange that caused me to believe that "stupid assertion:

Initially - "As he's a military man I suppose we are obliged to think that he's above all suspicion of bias. That seems to be your current theme, cap-doffer-in-chief. Well, as they say, the first casualty of war..." - Steve Shaw - Is truth - i.e. the man is automatically a liar - totally unfounded assumption on your part. What reason does he have Shaw to lie? According to what you infer his reason to lie is because he is part of the military.

Next we have this nugget from military expert and experience warrior Steve Shaw:

"The soldiers in Jim's piece were in the thick of the conflict."

Really? And you know this for sure how? Because they said so? They are military men like Tim Collins or Richard Kemp, who you think are born liars what verification do you have that those men were where they said they were - I mean apart from them telling a story that suits your argument.

Tell me Shaw, from your extensive experience of being in combat, what it is that you notice while under fire in a situation where others are trying their utmost to kill you and your friends, what is it that you know? Now I do know for certain that neither yourself, or your pal Carroll have ever, in your lives been under such circumstances - I on the other hand have. When it comes to the big picture stuff, those at the pointy end of things have got absolutely no idea of what is going on apart from the tiny postage stamp sized snap-shots you get every time you muster the guts to stick your head above the parapet to sneak a look.

Yes Collins visited the war zone a year after the fighting. and all the forensic evidence was still there, he had time to examine it at leisure, there was no-one shooting at him, he had time to look at it. The five dozen IDF men on the ground on ground at the time had none of these luxuries and besides at the time their major concern was focused on achieving the mission they had been set and saving their own hides. As you have no experience of this, please do not even attempt to have the arrogance to argue the point as you haven't got the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

Tell me why Tim Collins, who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with UN HRC or UN Watch, be biased in favour of the Israeli regime that he has no allegiance to and who he is not part of? Having no axe to grind whatsoever, he gave his honest opinion of what he saw - simple as that. Travers didn't even f**kin' well bother to LOOK. The prat didn't even bother to check who his Palestinian "witnesses" were, or what organisation they belonged to.

"just as capable of misjudgement as anyone else - Apart from you it seems.

"fraudulent reporter at the Beeb - None more fraudulent than Jeremy Bowen, or Barbara Plett, or Rageh Omaar.

"I'm not saying this to blacken his name. - Hell as like. You have absolutely no knowledge or experience to pass an opinion on anything to do with the military. Your approach to the subject is totally biased and coloured by your ideological belief in stereotypes that you clearly demonstrate in all your arguments.

"As for Judge Goldstone, he made mistakes that he has admitted to. But ask yourself why Israel, if their behaviour has been as saintly as described in the UN Watch report, absolutely refused to cooperate with him right from the outset."

Those mistakes would never have been admitted to had UN Watch not conducted their own investigation and openly challenged what Goldstone had reported. Had the Goldstone report been accepted blindly then it would have been the basis for any legal action taken in the International Court of Justice - as it was the Goldstone report was shown to be biased and seriously flawed. By the way the reason that the Israeli Government refused to co-operate with Goldstone was because under the terms of the mandate given they were only looking to critically investigate actions by the IDF.

Tell me Shaw how has Goldstone "changed the game for Israel"? Goldstone covered the 2009 Operation Cast Lead. What was different on the Israeli approach in 2012 and in 2014? How many rockets have been fired into Israel by Hamas since 2014? Since 2014 a total of 16 rockets have launched into Israel - none since August 2016. How many Israeli incursions into Gaza have been made since 2014? NONE See any connection Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 17 - 07:12 PM

Sheesh Teribus, don't be so hard with experience on little Stevie blunder there, it might give him a complex and cause him to question his bias...........no chance lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 17 - 05:00 AM

Steve,
The IDF killed hundreds of children in a very short time.

Really? More details of that "fact" please Steve, with an estimate of how many were victims of faulty missiles intended for Israeli civilians.

White phosphorus was used.

It was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 17 - 05:18 AM

Wiki,
"According to data provided by the Palestinian International Middle East Media Center, 79.7% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza were male, with the majority between 16 and 35 (fighting-age)."

"Israel has pointed to the relatively small numbers of fatalities among women, children and men over 60, and to instances of Hamas fighters being counted as civilians (perhaps due to the broad definition of "civilian" used by the Gaza Health Ministry), to support its view that the number of the dead who were militants is 40–50%"

" ITIC reported instances in which children and teenagers served as militants, as well as cases where the ages of casualties reported by GHM were allegedly falsified, with child militants listed as adults and adults listed as children."

"Abbas said that "more than 120 youths were killed for violating the curfew and house arrest orders issued against them" by Hamas, referring to reports that Hamas targeted Fatah activists in Gaza during the conflict. Abbas said that Hamas also executed more than 30 suspected collaborators without trial"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Impact

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 17 - 05:09 AM

Labour MP Louise Ellman last week.
"Ellman also believes that, despite foot-dragging by the leadership, there is now "more of an understanding that there is an issue of anti-Semitism in the Labour party."
She points, too, to the fact that senior figures in the party, such as deputy leader Tom Watson, "continue to speak out very strongly against what's happening."

There has been, Ellman argues, a "real change in how people understand modern anti-Semitism."
She recognizes that while members of the Labour party have always recoiled from the problem in its "traditional form" — she cites opposition to Britain's pre-war fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, and his modern-day adherents in the far-right British National party — some have greater difficulty recognizing left-wing anti-Semitism.
The phenomenon is not a new one, she argues, but has become "more prominent and often shows in discussions about Israel and the way it is treated in a way no other country is."
It is not, though, simply how Israel is discussed which is problematic, but the manner in which parts of the left focus on it to the exclusion of many other issues and conflicts which Ellman finds disturbing.
"It is deeply problematic because Israel is singled out of all the disputes around the world," she says, "and it is then discussed in ways that don't recognize the existential problem that Israel faces, and it then emerges that Israel is uniquely evil — and that is a completely distorted reality."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/this-tough-as-nails-uk-politician-wont-be-cowed-by-the-anti-semitism-of-her-own-party/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:59 AM

Labour MP Louise Ellman is talking about our resident Labour Party members right there. If the party brass read their posts they would undeniably face suspension.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:18 AM

Ellman is rabidly anti-Hamas and rabidly pro-Israel. Anyone reading the two posts above should be aware of that.

Extracted from wiki.
She voted "very strongly for" the Iraq War, "very strongly against" an investigation into that war, and "very strongly for" renewal of Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons programme.

Ellman is also the Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has been an active spokeswoman in Parliament on issues relating to the Middle East. Ellman is a member of Labour Friends of Israel. [On the] assassination of Sheikh Yasin, the 66-year-old spiritual leader of Hamas, [she] told Parliament that "Israel's action in killing Sheikh Yasin was a legitimate response to an extraordinary situation". In January 2011, during a debate on Antisemitism she asked: "Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the anti-Semitism that he describes is rarely opposed by those who declare themselves anti-racist?"

In the 2010 Election campaign leaflets had been distributed in her constituency of Liverpool Riverside targeting Mrs Ellman and Luciana Berger for their membership of Labour Friends of Israel and was headed "Don't vote for Friends of Israel". A leaflet headed "Remember Gaza" and subheaded "Don't vote for Labour Friends of Israel" was written and widely distributed by Liverpool Friends of Palestine and appears on the website LabourNet. An article appeared in The Jewish Chronicle entitled "Racist leaflets against Jewish candidates in Liverpool."

Not a great "authority" then, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 10:25 AM

Ellman is rabidly anti-Hamas and rabidly pro-Israel

As are all decent, fair minded people who don't have a problem with Jews.

There has been, Ellman argues, a "real change in how people understand modern anti-Semitism."

Some people excepted, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 10:35 AM

Well she certainly doesn't understand it, unfortunately. Most of her ranting about it is about Israel, not about Jews at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:24 PM

Ellman is rabidly anti-Hamas and rabidly pro-Israel.

Why would anyone not be "rabidly anti" a brutal terrorist organisation.
Are you not Steve?

What is wrong with being pro-Israel, the only democracy in the region?

Why does that make her views on Labour anti-Semitism suspect when there are so many others in labour who say the same?

She is a British Labour Co-operative politician who has been the MP for Liverpool Riverside since 1997. In Parliament, she is Chair of the Transport Select Committee and a member of the Liaison Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:25 PM

.....That makes her a better "authority" than you Steve!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 06:55 PM

Does it really. The trouble with your "authorities," Keith, which are myriad (you employ them routinely instead of presenting honest argument), is that you select the ones that reinforce your personal prejudices. This particular lady fits your bill perfectly. I'm glad you admit that she's rabidly anti-Hamas. Personally, I prefer a more measured approach. Be more honest, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:43 PM

Being rabidly anti-Hamas is the correct approach to take with rabidly genocidal, anti-Semitic terrorists. A measured approach is what Neville Chamberlain tried with that other rabidly genocidal anti-Semite - how did that work out for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 08:18 PM

Dear me. Do you think that Neville really knew what was going to happen to six million Jews, idiot?! Perhaps you should look up "rabidly." It more than implies brainless advocacy, unthinking passion and mindless fervour. Not my approach. Show us that it isn't yours. You may struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 May 17 - 08:50 PM

Perhaps you should look up "rabidly."

Perhaps you should - you're the one playing silly word games to divert when cornered.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:04 PM

Have a nice cup of cocoa and toddle off to bed. Don't forget your teddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 17 - 02:56 AM

Ducked the question didn't you Shaw (Par for the course for you - that is what you normally do - others, according to your diktats have to explain and substantiate everything but you for some reason best known to yourself are excused this essential process and requirement)

Keith A's very reasonable question - "Why would anyone not be "rabidly anti" a brutal terrorist organisation.
Are you not Steve?

No direct answer from Shaw because both Shaw and Carroll are apologists for Hamas, the internationally recognised terrorist organisation. The organisation that Corbyn and his hard-left pals in the Labour Party refers to as being "friends" (No bloody wonder Jewish members of the Labour Party feel "uncomfortable").

Shaw now mithers about use of the word "rabid", yet he was the one to introduce it with reference to someone who quite rightly forcefully condemns Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas has no interest at all in peace, or in any peace process, because they are making too much money from the current situation - money for nothing. The so-called "leaders" of the Arabs of Palestine have betrayed and let their people down at every turn since 1948. They have robbed them of hope and deliberately kept them in poverty and despair, because poverty and despair is good for attracting billions in international aid and assistance that is paid directly to the "leaders" for them to disburse as they see fit, the "people" never get a sniff of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 04:17 AM

The man who never "directly answers" anything gives us a perfect example of a rabid post. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:22 AM

Steve,
. The trouble with your "authorities," Keith, which are myriad (you employ them routinely instead of presenting honest argument), is that you select the ones that reinforce your personal prejudices

Unfair Steve. You folks just deny that the Labour Left has had serious problems with anti-Semitism.
You would rightly dismiss my own view on the subject because, like you, I have no inside knowledge.
Instead I have quoted senior, long established and prominent Labour people who you can try to dismiss but only make yourself foolish by doing so.
They know rather better than you what is going on in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:30 AM

Steve, you criticise and dismiss Ellman for being anti Hamas so presumably you are pro Hamas, a recognised terrorist group responsible for indiscriminate atrocities such as bombing buses and the kidnap and murder of school kids.

On the Blasphemy thread you express your abhorrence for capital punishment. Israel is the only state in the region that does not practise it. Hamas actually lynches opponents in the street without even a pretence of a trial!

What is the real, underlying reason for your hatred of Israel and support for its enemies?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 06:22 AM

"Instead I have quoted senior, long established and prominent Labour people"

You have quoted a long-standing pro-Israeli regime Islamophobe who justified an assassination. Why not look at the excellent article in today's Guardian by Sarah Helm instead. Find out what it's really like in Gaza these days. Get those blinkers off.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:04 AM

What it is really like in Gaza these days is the direct result of choices made and actions taken by those who "govern" Gaza (And I use the word "govern" in it's loosest possible meaning).

What it is really like in Gaza these days is the people live with the fact that they live in a one party "state" - anyone wishing to provide a political alternative may find themselves taking a flying lesson without the benefit of an aeroplane from the roof of a seven storey building.

What it is really like in Gaza these days is the people, even in this one-party paradise, have not had the chance to exercise their right to vote since 2006.

What it is really like in Gaza these days is that while the Hamas government, throughout this "blockade", can smuggle in weapons, explosives, in fact anything they want. But they cannot for some strange reason do anything to alleviate the shortages that the people they are supposed to be governing are experiencing.

What it is really like in Gaza these days Shaw is that cement, wiring and steel can be smuggled in to build shelters for Hamas "fighters", yet Hamas have not built one shelter for the people they are supposed to be governing while ordering them to remain in locations that the IDF have clearly issued warnings that they are about to attack.

They have been on the losing side of this conflict, entirely of their own making, for 70 years - that by anyone's measurement is a bloody slow learning curve - high time they started learning from history - their fault - entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:09 AM

Yes, let Hamas show you what it's really like in Gaza these days. Get those blinkers off. As the sign says: Thank you Hamas

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:13 AM

Turn the record over, Teribus. Your unsupported anti-Hamas propaganda serves absolutely no useful purpose. We are talking about two million fellow human beings here who are living under siege. We need to find ways out of the situation. Read the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:22 AM

Yep, boobs, and just read the comments under the video. I'm guessing that you wrote them all in a fit of hatefest.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:43 AM

"We are talking about two million fellow human beings here who are living under siege."

Self-imposed.

"We need to find ways out of the situation."

No Shaw - THEY need to realise that they have absolutely no right whatsoever to deny the right of Israel to exist. They need to realise that they must find a way of making peaceful co-existence work to the mutual benefit of all - They need to do that - NOBODY ELSE CAN MAKE IT WORK - a solution cannot be imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:49 AM

just read the comments under the video.

So, nothing to say about the video just another attempt at diversion because the video shows you to be once again full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:02 AM

I haven't said anything to either contradict or applaud that bloody video. It's a piece of propagandistic silliness. I've tried to tell you a hundred times that I have no truck with Hamas. What do you think of the vituperous nastiness from Islamophobes that it engendered in the comments underneath? Tell me which ones you agree with!

So, two million civilians who you claim are powerless to do anything about Hamas have brought that siege on themselves, eh, Teribus? I mean, what kind of man ARE you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:16 AM

Trying to link me to the comments below the video is despicable but that's you Shaw. Also your use of the word "siege" for what is a LEGAL blockade is despicable, it is a deliberate lie the purpose of which is to demonize Israel - there's a word for people who deliberately single out Israel for demonization - look it up. BTW, Israel delivers 1000 truckloads of goods to Gaza daily - some siege eh - liar.

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

Very amusing. Now tell me which of the comments from pro-Israeli regime supporters you agree with. Watch it folks if you scroll down them - there are plenty of little bobads down there! They make the video itself look positively saintly (which it isn't, of course).   A word in your shell-like, boobs: if you don't wish to be associated with stuff you link to in your posts, don't post it. Easy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:24 AM

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:42 AM

Come on, sunshine - your link! Which of those comments under the video would you like to endorse? Not nice, some of them, are they? How about the one that referred to rapefugees?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:45 AM

You are truly despicable Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 17 - 11:12 AM

"So, two million civilians who you claim are powerless to do anything about Hamas have brought that siege on themselves, eh, Teribus?"

Basically yes Shaw. Since 1948 they are and have been conditioned to be professional "victims" firstly by the Egyptians and Jordanians who by force of arms stole and annexed Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from the former mandated territory of Palestine then shut the "Palestinians" up in Refugee Camps - Not a squeak out of any of you about that (Wonder why?). Later when they withdrew the "Palestinians" under Arafat still kept those other "Palestinians" confined to those camps - now why was that Shaw - Meanwhile over in Israel they took in over 800,000 refugees and guess what? Not a single refugee in sight in the entire country.

The "Leadership" of the "Palestinians" found that by parading these poor unfortunates they could through guilt extract money from the non-frontline Arab states and the international community and a concerted campaign of provocation and management they have set out to paint the democratically elected government of Israel as black as possible. This task is made easier by gullible fools such as yourself and Carroll.

I mean, what kind of man ARE you?

You are asking the wrong person. You should be asking the "Palestinians" what sort of people they are. So far according to their track record they are the sort of people who simply cannot learn from their past mistakes. In 1948 they were sold the lie that the armies of five Arab nations would annihilate the Jews and drive them into the sea and that the land, businesses, farms and homes built up by the Jews would be theirs for the taking. They have been fed that cloud cuckoo-land fantasy ever since. By now after God knows how many attempts they should have resigned themselves to the fact that it is just not going to happen. Those two million people living in Gaza and the 2.1 million living in the West Bank have received more in international aid since 1948 than was made available to Europe under the Marshall Plan (Compare what was accomplished with that to what the "Palestinian Leaders" have done with the money that has been paid to them).

The solution is simple:

1: Stop all attacks against Israel and Israeli citizens immediately
2: Officially recognise the internationally recognised sovereign state of Israel.
3: Affirm that the State of Israel and all its citizens have the right to exist free from attack or the threat of attack.

Do that and the "blockade" stops
Do that and there will be no further armed responses by Israel to Arab provocation.

Ask the Egyptians and the Jordanians if Israel keeps their side of the bargain. As far as I know they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 17 - 01:12 PM

You have quoted a long-standing pro-Israeli regime Islamophobe who justified an assassination.

She is just the latest, and only quoted because it is current.

I have quoted many senior, long established and prominent Labour people, including McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor and Corbyn's closest ally, Abbott who is very close to Corbyn, Watson the Deputy Leader, and prominent people like Khan and Thornberry.

Against all those, why should anyone listen to you Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 17 - 01:19 PM

Ah Keith, everybody must listen to Shaw because he used to be a teacher and here he behaves as though we are all in his classroom.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 17 - 01:34 PM

From Steve's Guardian article.

"Both the US and Britain have made clear they believe that nothing significant has altered in Hamas's position. A Foreign Office spokesman said: "They must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements."
True, what Hamas means by its new "General Principles and Policies Document" is still murky, particularly as it still holds out the possibility of a Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine. And it has published the changes now as a strategic move to secure its own survival.
After 10 years of a crippling economic siege Hamas is struggling to govern. It desperately needs money – not least to pay for fuel – and it needs Egypt to open its crossing into the Sinai. In return, both Egypt and Arab paymasters demand that Hamas show moderation."

What she gets wrong,
"The uncomfortable fact is that the west is only too happy to leave the people of Gaza inside their prison; it suits us to do so. We don't care about blighted lives, or about whether the electricity is on six hours or four hours or if there is none at all. "

No. We can do nothing while Hamas pursues its insane war against its neighbour!

"By accepting that Hamas has met at least some of the west's conditions,.."

It has not!

"On the Gaza streets there is no expectation of any change, only predictions of a new war."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/hamas-peace-gaza-stalemate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 03:56 PM

Well cherrypicked, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 04:04 PM

"Against all those, why should anyone listen to you Steve?"

You keep saying that but you keep reading my posts. Are you insane?

And no, you won't pay me to give you six of the best across your eager, naked buttocks, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 17 - 04:54 PM

The person who wrote that Guardian piece is clearly a dupe of Hamas propaganda. The "new" document still calls for the liberation of all of historical Palestine (ie Israel), says armed resistance is the means to achieve that goal and does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

We have reaffirmed the unchanging constant principles that we do not recognize Israel; we do not recognize the land occupied in 1948 as belonging to Israel and we do not recognize that the people who came here [Jews] own this land

- Hamas senior official Mahmoud al-Zahar

"The uncomfortable fact is that the west is only too happy to leave the people of Gaza inside their prison; it suits us to do so. We don't care about blighted lives, or about whether the electricity is on six hours or four hours or if there is none at all."

The PA pays Israel for the power it provides to Gaza. Abbas is withholding payment as a power play against Hamas after they refused to purchase fuel from the PA for their only power plant. The PA also wants Hamas to either take full responsibility for the territory it governs, or to relinquish control back to it.

The author of this piece has bought into the blatantly false narrative of victimology as propagated by the fakestinians which has enriched their leaders to obscene levels. She demonstrates the soft bigotry of low expectations toward these people. Jew haters lap it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:24 PM

Yep, and I'm the Queen of Sheba. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:45 PM

Israel doesn't have to worry about Egypt and Jordan because those two shabbily-governed non-democracies are propped up, conditionally of course, by the west. Of course, Israel is unconditionally propped up by the west, but hey.

The question "what kind of man are you" was a reference to your disgusting assertion that TWO MILLION Gazans, including over a million women and children, are living under a siege that they brought on themselves. I suppose you believe in original sin too. You have claimed so many times that Hamas don't allow elections and rule Gaza with an iron fist, etc., then you blame all two million for a self-imposed blockade, even though, according to you, they have no say. Well I think that isn't too far removed from the blanket attitude to the Jews that eventually led to the Holocaust. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:46 PM

"1: Stop all attacks against Israel and Israeli citizens immediately"
Utter and (as usual) unqualified by a shred of proof bullshit
Israel is demanding total surrender and offering nothing in return
The main cuses of the violencxe is and always has been the land-grabbing policy of Israel aimed at ethnically cleansing the area
https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/israel-palestine-and-the-occupied-territories/land-and-settlement-issues.html
Israel has no intention of halting this, on the contrary, THEY ARE NOW IRREVERSIBLE
Israel has now written into law
THE GRABBING OF PALESTINIAN LAND
Even Israeli politiicians are describing Israel's policy as "EVIL and DANGEROUS"
If you bunch of comedians have any evidence that this is not happening, produce it insted of trying to bully and bluster it through, just like your political right wing heroes
Were's your evidence for all this bullshit?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:52 PM

That's the nail hit exactly on the head, Jim. Israel never has to give anything in return. Why would they when they have the world's biggest poodle in tow who keeps the military money rolling in and who never offers any more than the mildest scolding for even the worst of the Israeli regime's outrages?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:06 PM

And its gonna get worse - just give Twitler and Mad Dog Mattis a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 17 - 01:44 AM

Ah so Jom it would appear that it is perfectly OK for the Arabs of Palestine to openly declare their intention to grab land and annihilate a race but it is totally reprehensible for the Jews of Palestine to defend themselves. Tell me the rationale behind that thinking.

It was the Arabs of Palestine who chose war over peaceful negotiation Shaw. So yes they all must live with the consequences of falling in behind that decision. They are being asked to totally surrender, it was they, under Arafat, who declared war on every single Jew in the world. The same rules applied to Germany, Italy and Japan - if memory serves me correctly, unconditional surrender didn't work out too badly for them.

After 70 years of failure what other choice have the Arabs of Palestine got? Another 70 years of the same? There is no realistic belief in any Two-State solution by anyone, the Palestinian State was always going to be totally dependent economically on Israel. So next time the Arabs of Palestine in Gaza "kick-off" just let them get on with it, no UN brokered ceasefire for Hamas to ignore and defy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:49 AM

Jim and Steve
Israel never has to give anything in return.

Huh?
In return for what??

In return for not being attacked, Israel would stop defending itself from those attacks and peace and prosperity would prevail.

Israel had occupied Gaza.
It was actually quite prosperous then.
Israel withdrew. Gaza started attacking them, so Israel defended itself with a blockade, and incursions when the rocketing gets extreme.

Steve,
You keep saying that but you keep reading my posts. Are you insane?


Huh?? It is not "insane" to read the views of others even when they are easily proved wrong by quoting people who know better.
It is fun actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:14 AM

"Ah so Jom it would appear that it is perfectly OK for the Arabs of Palestine to openly declare their intention to grab land and annihilate a race but it is totally reprehensible for the Jews of Palestine to defend themselves. Tell me the rationale behind that thinking.
"
You've had a full answer to that one - your selective dyslexia appears to be becoming a problem to your understanding anything
Go find someone who can explain it to you
"Huh?
In return for what??
Huh ?
In return to being allowed to settle as refugees from the RIGHT-WING NAZI Holocaust as refugees of course
The cast majority of today's Israelis are settlers who were given land by the British - they went on to steal more, as Ben Gurion admitted
"In return for not being attacked, Israel would stop defending itself from those attacks and peace and prosperity would prevail."
An oft repeted lie to defend terrorist war crimes
Israel will never stop its persecution and murder until all the Arabs havce been driven out and Israeel is a monotheistic state
"Israel withdrew. Gaza started attacking them,"
You've been given the maps - compare them to even the land the Brits gave
The "people who know better" are the land thieves and killers who you have admitted you are defending
Respond to the articles or put up some that prove them wrong
Even the Israeli Jews are disturbed at what is happening
-you choose to defend Israeli fascism - you have never shown a shred of interest in what the Jews have to say - fully in line with your owen politics
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:37 AM

Israel never has to give anything in return.

They gave Gaza to the Arabs and what did they get in return - thousands of rockets fired at them.

They are also willing to give Judea and Samaria to the Arabs for a homeland but they will not do so until the security of their citizens is assured.

Israel giving over large tracts of the land that was assigned to them for their homeland by the League of Nations in return for peace and security is overly generous by any standard so saying that they never have to give anything in return is a blatant lie but to be expected from haters like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 09:38 AM

"They gave Gaza to the Arabs and what did they get in return - thousands of rockets fired at them"
The most of them were "blow ins" who came to the area as refugees
They were not in the position to give people who had occupied the land for many centuries anything
You are doing your mates' trick of ignoring the facts Bobad - you have the maps, you have the statements from Jews and non-jews alike, you have the fact that Israeli seizure of land has been internationally recognised as A CRIMINAL ACT
It's like praising a rapist by saying "at least he gave me my knickers back"
"but to be expected from haters like you."
Fuck you you cowardly antisemitic prick
Yoou are the ones accusing the Jews of Israeli regime war crimes and atrocities - not me.
I don't think I have ever come across anybody who as ever attempted to denigrate the Jewish People to the extent you have
If you are Jewish, you live up perfectly to the accusation of being a "self-hater"
Your preference appears to be for those who instigated the holocaust - a "kapo" mentality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 10:08 AM

Jim,
The most of them were "blow ins" who came to the area as refugees
The cast majority of today's Israelis are settlers

So you deny the right of Jews to exist in Israel.
That is considered to be ant-Semitic Jim. That view would not be tolerated by any political party here or in Ireland, except the extreme Left or Right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 10:45 AM

you have the fact that Israeli seizure of land has been internationally recognised as A CRIMINAL ACT

OK, but why single out Israel?
What about the Chinese in Tibet, the Turks in Cyprus, etc.?

you have the maps
Tthey show that Israel only took land while beating off attacks from it, and have taken not a square centimetre since 1973 while giving away vast swathes including half of Egypt and all of Gaza.

Yoou are the ones accusing the Jews of Israeli regime war crimes and atrocities - not me.

No. That is just you and Steve.

I don't think I have ever come across anybody who as ever attempted to denigrate the Jewish People to the extent you have

We have not.

In return to being allowed to settle as refugees from the RIGHT-WING NAZI Holocaust as refugees of course

Another recognised anti-Semitic statement Jim.

The cast majority of today's Israelis are settlers who were given land by the British - they went on to steal more, as Ben Gurion admitted

He did not. As you know that quote was faked.

"In return for not being attacked, Israel would stop defending itself from those attacks and peace and prosperity would prevail."
An oft repeted lie to defend terrorist war crimes

It is a simple fact. Explain what you think wrong about it.

Israel will never stop its persecution and murder until all the Arabs havce been driven out and Israeel is a monotheistic state


No Arabs have been driven out of Israel. Their community prospers and grows and will soon outnumber the Jews.

"Israel withdrew. Gaza started attacking them,"
You've been given the maps - compare them to even the land the Brits gave

The only extra land is the West Bank.

The "people who know better" are the land thieves and killers who you have admitted you are defending

No. Just putting Israel's side of the story. What is wrong with that?

Respond to the articles or put up some that prove them wrong

it was one article and I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 17 - 10:59 AM

"The cast majority of today's Israelis are settlers who were given land by the British" - Says Jom

Apart from the Jews that had remained in the area and had been happily living there for over 800 years, Jews from the diaspora had been returning to BUY land from 1847 until 1920 when the League of Nations Mandate was created and given to Great Britain to administer. In 1923 77% of the mandated territory was hived off and reserved solely for the Arab population of Palestine. The remaining 23% represents the area we now refer to as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and in that area anyone of any religion, or any ethnic group could settle. This was a deliberate move on the part of the League of Nations an organisation that Jom seems to have completely forgotten about

Now then Jom care to tell us what land was given by the British to the Jews. As far as I am aware no land was given to anybody - more Jim "made-up-shit".

What was taken over from the Ottomans was territory where land was owned by the Ottoman government and much of the rest belonged to absentee landlords who lived in Cairo and Damascus. In the first period of Jewish settlement (1847 - 1920) the Ottomans made a point of deliberately selling the Jews land that they considered to be useless. In the second period 1920 to 1948 the Jews bought land either from the absentee landlords or from the British Administrators. The largest influx of Jewish settlers arrived AFTER the mandate period

1800 "Palestine":
Jews - 7,000
Christians - 22,000
Muslims - 246,000

1890 "Palestine":
Jews - 43,000
Christians - 57,000
Muslims - 432,000

1914 "Palestine":
Jews - 94,000
Christians - 70,000
Muslims - 525,000

1922 "Palestine":
Jews - 84,000
Christians - 71,000
Muslims - 589,000

1931 "Palestine":
Jews - 175,000
Christians - 89,000
Muslims - 760,000

1947 "Palestine":
Jews - 630,000
Christians - 143,000
Muslims - 1,181,000

So Jom in the 57 years from 1890 to 1947 the Jewish population of "Palestine" went from 43,000 to 630,000 an increase of 587,000 the majority of that increase would not be settlers but children born to Jewish families already there.

In the 70 years since the end of the mandate and the departure of the British the population of Israel has grown from 630,000 to roughly 8,310,000. Now we know where at least 830,000 of those came from - they were Jews forcibly robbed of all their possessions and deported from Arab countries where they had lived for centuries - no "right of return" for them Jom. But as with the previous increase most of the increase in population will be accounted for by the children born to Israelis already settled there.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 17 - 10:59 AM

Keep on spouting your filth Carroll - you are creating quite the impressive record.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 17 - 11:25 AM

As for the myth of thousands years of Arab presence in what is today Israel see Palaestina, ex monumentis veteribus illustrata written by the Dutch scholar and orientalist Adrian Reland. In 1695 Reland undertook a tour of Israel, known as Palestina at the time, and surveyed 2,500 places where people lived at that time.

His most prominent conclusions:

1. Not one settlement in the Land of Israel has a name that is of Arabic origin.

2. Most of the land was empty, desolate.
   Most of the inhabitants were Jews, the rest Christians. The very few Muslims were nomad Bedouins who arrived in the area as construction and agriculture labor reinforcement, seasonal workers. In Gaza for example, lived approximately 550 people, fifty percent Jews and the rest mostly Christians.

3. No Palestinian heritage or Palestinian nation.
The book totally contradicts any post-modern theory claiming a "Palestinian heritage," or Palestinian nation. The book strengthens the connection, relevance, pertinence, kinship of the Land of Israel to the Jews and the absolute lack of belonging to the Arabs, who robbed the Latin name Palestina and took it as their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 11:28 AM

"Keep on spouting your filth Carroll - "Keep cowering behind your anonymity and blaming the Jewish People for Israeli war crimes and you'll continue to be regarded as an antisemitic troll
"
OK, but why single out Israel?"B=ecause they aare the one we are talking about and those are the ones you choose to defend
The fact that Israel is not alone in commuting war crimes and human rights atrocities does not alter the fact one iota
Stop being stupid
I would be equally condemnatory if we were discussion American or Former Yugoslavian war crimes
Pointing at others is no defence, you silly little man
" As far as I am aware no land was given to anybody - more Jim "made-up-shit"."
No?
According to Ben Gurion, it was stolen
"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎‎, "al-Nakbah", literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war.[2] Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.[3] The term "nakba" also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949.
The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute[4] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[5][6] Approximately 250,000-300,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled prior to the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948; a fact which was named as a causus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country, sparking the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre,[7]:239–240 which caused many to leave out of panic; direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes;[8] collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders.[9][10] and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.[11][dubious – discuss][12]
Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[13][14] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing,[15][16][17] while others dispute this charge.[18][19][20]
The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will grant them their claimed right to return to their homes or be compensated, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The events of 1948 are commemorated by Palestinians both in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere on 15 May, a date now known as Nakba Day."
Wiki
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 11:46 AM

You continue to ignore the information you are given and simply make up your own and you dare to call facts "made up shit"
You are a friggin' bullying megalomanic Teribus
Jim Carroll
More to ignore
Declaration of intent by Ben Gurion
"When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that "after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine". Partition should be accepted, he argued, "to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine". The Jewish State would then "have to preserve order", if the Arabs would not acquiesce, "by machine guns, if necessary."
FOREIGN POLICY JOURNAL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 17 - 12:02 PM

Where and when have I ever made up information Jom. Got any examples of me doing that? If I did it would be the easiest thing in the world to refute what information I have given. Yet you and your pals have never once been able to do that. Now why is that Jom? Answer of course is simple and obvious, the information, facts and detail I provide are correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 12:15 PM

OK, but why single out Israel?"B=ecause they aare the one we are talking about and those are the ones you choose to defend
The fact that Israel is not alone in commuting war crimes and human rights atrocities does not alter the fact one iota

It is not a war crime. Israel has never been shown guilty of one.
You always and only refer to Jewish settlers, and never the illegal Chinese settlers in Tibet, illegal Turkish settlers in Cyprus, illegal Russian settlers in the Baltic states, etc.

According to Ben Gurion, it was stolen

Not true Jim, and what was the point of your paste in from Wiki?

Your "Foreign Policy Journal" article describes Israel's right to exist as a myth.
That outrageous claim demands that the whole piece be dismissed.

I do not believe that Ben Gurian "wrote" any such thing. Where did he?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 12:50 PM

"It is not a war crime. Israel has never been shown guilty of one."
If it had not been committing war crimes America wouldn't have had to prevent it from being tried by using so many vetoes
Don't insult outr intelligence by denying documented facts Keith
You have been given them - now where are yours?
""Not true Jim,"
You've been given the actual quorte a dozen times - denying facts is your metier
What was the point of your paste in from Wiki?"
Not for your benefit Keith - but if you want to know, get someone to explain it for you
"I do not believe that Ben Gurian "wrote" any such thing. Where did he?"
Fuck off Keith - you've been given the article - take it up with them - you might try spelling the name corectly before you search for it.
You and your bullshitting mate produce nothing but denials - at least your counterpart, David Irving, makes an effort
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:41 PM

Don't insult outr intelligence by denying documented facts Keith

Not them again!
Perhaps this time you will actually tell us what they are!!
I can't wait!

You've been given the actual quorte a dozen times - denying facts is your metier

Ben Gurion never said it. The only evidence is one person who claimed to have heard it, in private, kept quiet about it for twenty years, then wrote a book!
Ben Gurion never said it, never mind wrote it as just claimed.
If he did, give us the reference liar.

You and your bullshitting mate produce nothing but claims that you can not substantiate. Made up claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:16 PM

Perhaps this time you will actually tell us what they are!!"
You sick, stupid litle man
You offer nothing yourself and lie about not being given anything
Typical of what the State of Israel has become in the hands of the extreme right, but, just lieke David Iriving, they make an effort at pretense
Any moron can just deny, but it takes a special breed tp persistently lie in public
Before you ask for an example - how about - "Perhaps this time you will actually tell us what they are!!"
You really do have no self respect, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 17 - 10:55 AM

You have claimed before to have "documented facts," but when asked for them all we got was bluster and vacuous, infantile abuse.
Just like now.

What have I claimed that was not verified Jim?
Specify, and I will oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 17 - 11:31 AM

"What have I claimed that was not verified Jim?"
What have you verified Keith?
You've stopped putting up "real historians and experts" since they were all shot down in flames, you never respond to what has been put up other than to deny it outright, you claim that linked articles have been invented by me
"I do not believe that Ben Gurian "wrote" any such thing. Where did he?"
as does Teribus, constantly and you offer nothing in return
You are now the worst kind of bore - a self-important individual who appears to believe himself to be interesting and certainly authoritative enough to believe he has the right to manipulate and censor discussion
You offer nothing - your presence here seems to be attention seeking and your honest, what little there was of it - went on holiday a long tome ago.
I an co and count the brick if I want to be bored so if you have notheing constructive to say - I'm off
Jim arroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 17 - 01:22 PM

Jim,
"I do not believe that Ben Gurian "wrote" any such thing. Where did he?"
as does Teribus, constantly and you offer nothing in return

I do not believe it because I am well read on this, and it contradicts everything he really said.

You claim it but you can't verify it because it is not true.
Will you verify it now? Ha ha ha!

You said, "Don't insult outr intelligence by denying documented facts Keith

So tell us what "documented facts" I have denied!

Will you?
Ha ha ha ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 17 - 01:43 AM

Hi Jom which "real historians and experts" have you, or your pals ever been able to "shoot down in flames"? The total arrogance of that statement defies description. That you, armed with all your intolerance and bigotry cloaked in ignorance that in someone of your years is remarkable can argue that you know more about history than those who have made it their lives work studying the subject. But there again I am not surprised. It was you wasn't it who claimed that you knew more about the negotiations related to the Anglo-Irish Treaty than those who actually took part in the discussions themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 17 - 03:11 AM

"have you, or your pals ever been able to "shoot down in flames2
Not them - Keith's deliberate misrepresentation of what they said
Unlike you pair of half-wits, I have never challenged experts in their field other than to put contrary arguments by other experts
You, on the other hand, put up virtually nothing and dismiss everything that doesn't fit your agenda as "made up shit"
"It was you wasn't it who claimed that you knew more about the negotiations related to the Anglo-Irish Treaty"
Liar - I have never made such a claim
On the contrary - your entire case on Ireland has been based on ignorance of and hate for the Irish people - brainwashed children, celebrations for mass murder, the gullibility of a nation who really didn't want independence but were conned into it by foreigners....
At the time the whole of Ireland was commemorating the event that virually ended Britain's dominance over the country you weer depicting them as bloodthirsty morons - you are a pair of racist idiots, and like all racists you are both as thick as pig-shit about the people you attempt to invoke hatred against
Your intranegent refusal to accept documented facts was spectacularly demonstrated with your total refusal to accept what had been written about Bin Laden's business dealings - didn't fit so it wasn't true
Sabra Stadium couldn't be used as it was a wreck, Falagists being moved in from the airport, bulldozers being used to bury bodies...... all backed up with written evidence, all dismissed as "made up Carroll shit".
I certainly know more than you pair of comedians, but who doesn't
You think you can put this over by talking down to people - you are totally unable to stop yourself from doing it "Jom"
Know nothings tend to be like that
You want an example of your team idiocy
"I do not believe it because I am well read on this,"
I very much doubt if Keith has ever read a book from cover to cover in his like - his is a world of hastily cgathered and selective cut-'n-pastes (you are so arrogant, you can't even be bothered to do that - you just pontificate in a bullying manner and hope nobody checks)
No quotes contradicting the statement in question, not a single shred of evidence he has read anything (thought all out arguments - he even admitted he was "just putting Israel's case"
Arguing on the basis of just one side's point of view and failing to put things in context is not being "well read"
Keith appears to be coming down with a nasty bout of the giggles - perhaps he should lay off the sauce
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 17 - 04:04 AM

Not them - Keith's deliberate misrepresentation of what they said

Lie. I always provided linked quotes.

Don't insult outr intelligence by denying documented facts Keith

If that is not just another lie, QUOTE ME DOING IT!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 May 17 - 06:36 AM

a conservative councillor[,MariaGatland] for croydon is a fomer IRA MEMBER

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 17 - 06:57 AM

I believe she stood down because of her past, but was re-elected.
Unlike Corbyn and McDonnell, she now denounces the IRA for what they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 17 - 07:06 AM

Oh Jom, thought you'd have known better:

"It was you wasn't it who claimed that you knew more about the negotiations related to the Anglo-Irish Treaty" - my claim

to which you responded - "Liar - I have never made such a claim"

But you did Jom, shall I dig out your post where you claimed to know better than Arthur Griffith and George Gavan Duffy what went on behind closed doors at 22 Hans Place, Knightsbridge in December 1921.

You forget Jom, I have a far better memory than you, I have a far better grasp of detail than you and a far better understanding of history than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 May 17 - 08:05 AM

KEITH,you need to relisten to the interview.he denounced the violence, that is the same thing it denounces ira violence and uda and uvf violence and violkence by britsh armed forces like bloody sunday , and even handed denunciation of all violence by all involved and that includes the violence of the british army.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 17 - 11:11 AM

"shall I dig out your post where you claimed to know better than Arthur Griffith and George Gavan Duffy "
Please do - three Joms doesn't inspire confidence though
You never learn, do you?
Silly little strutter
"she now denounces the IRA for what they did"
Oh that's all right then
Nothing like pragmatism to stay in politics
I wonder if this will emerge during the election - I doubt it somehow
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/britains-secret-terror-deals-truly-disturbing-bbc-panorama-allegations-of-collusion-must-be-fully-investigated-says-amnesty-international-31261593.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 17 - 11:36 AM

"If that is not just another lie, QUOTE ME DOING IT!!"
Nearly forgot
Exactly how many times have you denied this
It's certainly documented - hasn't stopped you denying it - witout a shred of proof
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.
You certainly claim to know more than:
"Nahum Goldmann (Hebrew: נחום גולדמן‎) (July 10, 1895 – August 29, 1982) was a leading Zionist and the founder and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress."
I won't even begin to mention the number of times you have dismissed fully documented evidence on the Sabra Shatila massacre - or fully documented reports of the atrocities that took place during the Gaza incursions, or the documented condemnation of the Israeli settlments from international bodies
Your whole arguments have been based on denial of facts - you have never offered anything else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 17 - 12:48 PM

Incidentally
Another quote for you to deny, this time from Theodor Herzl - founder of modern Zionism

The earliest insider information we have on Zionism's thinking is from the diary of Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism's colonial-like enterprise. He wrote:
"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
Those words were committed to paper by Herzl in 1895 but they were not published (in other words they were suppressed) until 1962.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 17 - 05:08 AM

Jim,
Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

Goldman was an enemy of Ben-Gurion.
No-one but Goldman heard him say it. He claims it was in a private conversation, that he never mentioned for ten years then put it in his book when Ben Gurion was safely dead.
It contradicts everything he really said.

In no sense is such an unsubstantiated claim a "documented fact" and you know that because I have put this before you at least twice before.
The quote is a fake.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 17 - 05:28 AM

"questionable, Unverified Source: Clifford claims that Ben-Gurion wrote: "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country." In fact, according to Nahum Goldmann, Ben-Gurion allegedly said this to him. Goldmann was an adversary of Ben-Gurion, and he came out with this alleged quote, verbatim, in his book published two decades later (The Jewish Paradox, 1978), five years after Ben-Gurion died. There was no recording of the quote, and Ben-Gurion was no longer around to dispute it."

"And, finally, here's a real Ben-Gurion quote that Clifford chose not to share:
In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well. ...The attitude of the Jewish State to its Arab citizens will be an important factor—though not the only one—in building good neighbourly relations with the Arab States. If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, and if his status will not be the least different from that of the Jew, and perhaps better than the status of the Arab in an Arab state, and if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance, will be built... (Ba-Ma'Araha Vol IV, Part 2, pp. 260, 265, quoted in Fabricating Israeli History, Efraim Karsh, p.67)"
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

Read the rest to see another faked quote and a list of real quotes that give the lie to what you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 17 - 05:49 AM

What a shame then that these alleged aspirations of Ben Gurion are still a million miles from being achieved. The fact that that no Israeli regime has ever shown any appetite for achieving them is at the root of most of the problems the Middle East has endured for over half a century.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 17 - 06:01 AM

Also no Palestinian leaders or groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 06:02 AM

"Goldman was an enemy of Ben-Gurion."
No he was't
"After the war he worked actively with David Ben-Gurion towards the creation of Israel,[28] although he, with Moshe Shertok, advised Ben-Gurion, in vain, that the declaration of independence be delayed in order to allow more time for reaching a diplomatic entente with the Arabs.[29][30][31] He was concerned that an Arab-Israeli war would break out after the British left their Mandate and the State of Israel was proclaimed.[citation needed]"
You are making this up - why should you do this - thetorical question - you can't stop lying through your teeth
Even if he was he would not make such a thing up publicly - a leading and respected Zionist lying about a respected Jewish Zionist leader - are you completely insane
Zionists have intended to drive out the Arabs as far back as THeodor Hertzl - whose quote you chose to ignore
The other quote from Ben Gurion regarding driving out Arabs comes fro a letter to his son in 1937
Now respond to everything, not just the bits you think you can wriggle around

Some more quotes for you to ignore or deny
"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)
"With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [referring to the Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [referring to the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people [headed by Yosef Weitz] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities [for the Palestinian refugees] in other lands . . . What such permanent resettlement of 'Israeli' Arabs in the neighboring territories will mean in terms of making land available in Israel for settlement of our own people requires no emphasis." (Benny Morris, p. 149-150)
"I imagine that the INTENTION is to get rid of them. The interests of security demand that we get rid of them." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 28)
Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:
"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66).,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 17 - 06:24 AM

Palestinian groups and leaders have been presented with charade after charade dressed up as "peace negotiations" by Israeli regimes that never have to give an inch. Cheers to the US for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 17 - 06:31 AM

Lying and fabricating are the stock-in-trade of Jew haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 17 - 06:52 AM

Well I tend to refer to the politicians, in other words the Israeli regimes. You are obsessed with mentioning Jews. Jim's right about you, isn't he. By constantly associating the Jews with wrongdoing, something that neither Jim nor I ever do, you are in effect the most prominent antisemite on this board. We talk about politicians. Why can't you do the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 06:59 AM

"Lying and fabricating are the stock-in-trade of Jew haters."
Being one yourself - you should know Bobad
You are the only one ever to have attacked Jews on this forum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 17 - 07:06 AM

Liar Jim's fake quote,
"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66).,

What ben Gurion really said, liar.
"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. "
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 17 - 08:03 AM

Well I tend to refer to the politicians, in other words the Israeli regimes.

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right, and that it tends to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The concept generally posits that much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

Manfred Gerstenfeld, The Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism in European Society. Jewish Political Studies Review 17:1-2 Spring 2005

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 17 - 08:25 AM

Well I don't agree with him. And I should like to remind you that attacking the policies of Israeli regimes is not the same as attacking the state of Israel. I don't know how many times I have to tell you: I support the state of Israel and its continued existence. I should like to see Israeli leaders develop the vision to enable all the people of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, to have far greater security and peace than they currently endure. They are miles from that at present.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 09:30 AM

"Liar Jim's fake quote,"
You have been given the source to all these quotes, who made them and when and where they were made and you offer nothing but denials in return
You have just accepted that thois one was genuine by inventing the stupidly untrue suggestion that "Goldman was an enemy of Ben-Gurion."
You aren't even bright enough to stick to your own excuses
Now you are flailing around to defend what was said.
I don't tell lies - I never have
You, in contrast, have heaped up lie after lie to push your hate-filled agenda.
That's what you people do
Your blustering idiot of a mate asked if I would like to be linked to me claiming to know more than the signatories of the treaty - I said "yes please"
He rode off into the sunset.
He claimed to produce have produced a lisrt of my "lies" - he produces only a list of things I have said which contradict his own unqualified arguments
That makes him a meglomanic liar
I have just given you a whole bundle of statements by Ben Gurion, Theodor Hertzl and others - you choose to pretend they are not there
That makes you a liar.

"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinians] never do return ... The old will die and the young will forget," said David Ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel, in 1949."
Is the GUARDIAN lying
Did I make all this up - if not, it is you who is lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 10:27 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 10:30 AM

MANFRED GERSTENFELD ELD ATTACKS HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS ANND OTHER FELLOW JEWS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 17 - 12:08 PM

You have been given the source to all these quotes, who made them and when and where they were made and you offer nothing but denials in return

No Jim. I have produced what he really said.
The people you support have to lie because they have no case otherwise.

The quote "The old will die and the young will forget..." was his prediction in 1949 about the refugees who had left Israel.

Remember that the far more numerous Jewish refugees who had been thrown out of Arab states were given no hope of ever returning. Israel had to settle them all.
The Arab states chose not to resettle the Arab refugees, incarcerating them in camps without human rights or hope to the present day!

The old Jewish refugees have died and the young have forgot, but happily in the Jewish state.
That is how it should have happened for Arab refugees in the Arab states.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 01:06 PM

"No Jim. I have produced what he really said."
So you7 are saying I have invented them - you called me a liar, so that is the only conclusion to be reached
I have given you at least half a dozen exaples oeof exactly what he said - You choose the one that suits
"was his prediction in 1949 about the refugees who had left Israel."
Do you have any basis for claiming this - especially in the light of the pronounced intention of the founder of Zionism of driving all Arabs out?
No - of course you haven't
Just your disgusting invention of an enmity between Ben Gurion and Nahum Goldman - you made it up.
"Remember that the far more numerous Jewish refugees who had been thrown out of Arab states were given no hope of ever returning."
Absolute ******* nonsense
Palestinian refugees that have been driven out of their homeland without a hope of returning make up the largest number of any national group of refugees on the planet - there are 6.5 million Palestinian refugees scattered over the world today
Want to produce your figure
No?
Thought not!
You are a liar and a fanatic Keith
Jim Carroll

More to ignore - you've had all these before, but it's fun putting them up again to see you ignore them
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992
        
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 - 1999
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.
        
Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 - 2001
        
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 - present

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 17 - 01:42 PM

Another
"A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. … I am certain that we well not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreements with our Arab neighbors or by some other means. . . [If the Arabs refuse] we shall have to speak to them in another language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state."
As quoted in Chomsky, Noam, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (Updated Edition) (South End Press Classics Series).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 17 - 04:36 AM

Jim,
"was his prediction in 1949 about the refugees who had left Israel."
Do you have any basis for claiming this

Yes.
From your post,
"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinians] never do return ... The old will die and the young will forget," said David Ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel, in 1949."
It is obvious from the context that he was talking about the Arabs who had left Israel in 48/49.


Just your disgusting invention of an enmity between Ben Gurion and Nahum Goldman - you made it up.

"Did Ben-Gurion really say that? Maybe. It's just that (a) there is no independent verification of the quote; (b) it jibes perfectly (suspiciously so) with Goldmann's own views; (c) Goldmann's animosity toward Ben-Gurion was both longstanding and well known; (d) Goldmann waited some twenty-three years after the statement was allegedly made to publicize it; and (e) Ben-Gurion, conveniently dead for five years at the time of the book's publication, was in no position to acknowledge or deny Goldmann's veracity."
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/the-goldmann-paradox/2013/08/21/

"Remember that the far more numerous Jewish refugees who had been thrown out of Arab states were given no hope of ever returning."

It is a fact that many more Jews than Arabs were displaced in 1948-49
Now there are no displaced Jews because Israel settled them all, but millions of Arab refugees because the Arab states refused to settle them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 17 - 05:00 AM

Piss off Keith
Yiou have been givven loads and loads of evidence which you choose to ignore - you offer none
You are your old usual waste of space
Bo-ring
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 17 - 06:09 AM

Jim,
Just your disgusting invention of an enmity between Ben Gurion and Nahum Goldman - you made it up.

"Goldmann's animosity toward Ben-Gurion was both longstanding and well known;"

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 17 - 11:18 AM

"Goldmann's animosity toward Ben-Gurion was both longstanding and well known2
Your (unlinked "again) statement come from CAMRA ((Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America)) - an extremist Zionist site which fully supports the Israeli regime
A description of the organisation below
Nowehere does it attempt to prove the so-called enmity between Ben Gurion and Goldman - it is a straightforward attempt to smear him because of his reporting of what he said.
Little wonder you didn't link it
Now perhaps you might produce that proof rather than quoting (anonymously) ultra-right extremists
Who did you say loses?
Childish little prick
Jim Carroll

ZIONIST CABAL
Zionist cabal tries to hijack Wikipedia
January 9, 2014
By jm
CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) is the Orwellian name of a pro-Israel media watchdog group that monitors, influences, and seeks to control all mainstream media coverage of issues affecting public opinion on all matters related to Israel. It has some 1000 members and chapters in several major American cities. It's staffers scour all media coverage of Israel and "engage and directly contact" (some would say "harass") reporters, editors, producers and publishers concerning what they regard as "distorted or inaccurate coverage" (some would say "the truth") about Israel. They also offer "factual information" (some would say "propaganda") to refute those "errors". The role and influence of the organization is explained in this segment from the excellent documentary "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land."

However, the media landscape is now quickly changing in ways that make CAMERA's tactics less effective. Traditional news organizations are using fewer and fewer journalists and professional editors, and media consumers are increasingly turning to independent websites, blogs, and organizations like Wikipedia for their news and information. This change in how media is produced and consumed might lead some to think that standard pro-Israel narrative that has become the norm in the mainstream media, especially in the US, is about to come undone. But maybe not, for it seems that organizations like CAMERA are now changing their tactics in response to the changing media landscape. A recent article in the Electronic Intifada, based on leaked emails between members of CAMERA, reveals a brazen attempt by that organization to infiltrate Wikipedia precisely in order to slant the complex web of information it contains in a pro-Israel manner.

From the article:
A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia.
A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a "Senior Research Analyst" at CAMERA, calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history.
With over two million articles in English on every topic imaginable, Wikipedia has become a primary reference source for Internet users around the world and a model for collaboratively produced projects. Openness and good faith are among Wikipedia's core principles. Any person in the world can write or edit articles, but Wikipedia has strict guidelines and procedures for accountability intended to ensure quality control and prevent vandalism, plagiarism or distortion. It is because of these safeguards that articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective. The CAMERA plan detailed in the e-mails obtained by EI appears intended to circumvent these controls.
After being exposed, CAMERA's plan to infiltrate and control Wikipedia was abandoned, at least temporarily. But this story is a useful reminder of the extent to which these pro-Israeli groups are prepared to go to control the narrative on the Middle East conflict and how vigilant everyone else must be in protecting and spreading the truth about this conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 17 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
Your (unlinked "again) statement come from CAMRA

I did provide a link Jim.
It is that line of blue writing at the bottom of the post.
Here it is again, and it is not whatever it was you said it was.
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/the-goldmann-paradox/2013/08/21/

You lose again.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 04:14 AM

"It is that line of blue writing at the bottom of the post."
There is no "line of blue writing at the bottom of the post" Keith - oyu on the cooking sherry again
The quote you put up traces back directly to the organisation I named "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" - that is where it originated and nobody else has ever substantiated it
It is a propaganda attempt to smear a leading Zionist to cover up what Ben Gurion said
The Israeli regime has made doubly sure by locking up all Beg Gurion's papers that contain such incriminating evidence despite they should be legally accessible to all
Your childish "you lose" stupidity is unbelievable - you appear to treat the Jewish people with such contempt that you regard these arguments as a "win-lose" game, like 'Grand theft auto' - are you really that mindless?
Nobody will ever "win" anything until they come up with a decent argument
You will only do that when you ,font color=red>ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE STATEMENTT - BY BEN GURION AND OTHERS, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN
So far, you have used a smear by an extreme right Israel group as a diversion away from the main point
Beg Gurion said what he said, as did all the others you have had quoted
Israel's aim has always been tio rid the area of Arabs and create a purely Jewish State - that is ethnic cleansing by any definition.
Answer that, and you might "win something" - which appears to be your sole aim
You are basically an antisemite with no interest in the Jewish People, when you are not trying to "win" something, you are defending an ultra-right Israeli administration   
Grow up, for fuck's sake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 05:21 AM

Incidentally Keith
You do realise that you have completely reversed your position on Beg Gurion's statement since I first put it up
Your excuse then was the he was acting as Devil's Advocate' and putting himself in the posiion of the Palestinians rather than stating what he believed himself
No you have completely reversed your position and are suggesting that the leading Zionist who related the quote was lying because he was an enemy of Ben Gurion
Mkae upo your mind if you wish to "win" anything
Why should anybody waste time on debating with a half-wit who changes his story from minute to minute?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 17 - 12:26 PM

Jim, I gave the link in my post and repeated it for you.
It is the blue writing that follows the quote.

It is a propaganda attempt to smear a leading Zionist to cover up what Ben Gurion said

It does not. My article was written for Jews who would know if it lied about their relationship.
It does not deny the statement, it merely points out that Goldman alone heard it, no-one could verify it, it contradicted everything he really said, and Goldman kept quiet for twenty years then put it in a book when Ben Gurion was safely dead and unable to deny it.

It is an documented, unverified and highly unlikely claim.

You complain about my sources but you use extreme political sites that are hardly household names. Has anyone heard of "Examined Life?" It has not even got a Wiki page. Is it even safe to click on such sites?

ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE STATEMENTT - BY BEN GURION AND OTHERS, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN

No. I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on. It would be a full time job to follow up the screenfulls of shit you put up.

Irael's aim has always been tio rid the area of Arabs and create a purely Jewish State

Not very successful then Jim!! Has one single Arab left Israel since 1949?
Has the Arab population crashed from persecution?
No. It thrives and grows faster than the Jewish population despite Jewish immigration.

Your excuse then was the he was acting as Devil's Advocate' and putting himself in the posiion of the Palestinians rather than stating what he believed himself

I made that point before I discovered that we only have Goldman's word that he said it at all!
It is still a valid point.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 01:25 PM

Doesn't matter whether you did or not Keith - I've given you the source of that quote and the veracity of the people who issued it
You choose to ignore the fact that they are extremist right-wing loonies who are prepared to attack a leading member of the Zionist faith by calling him a liar
They provide no prood whatever of the antipathy they claim and reports of it appear nowhere else other than from a right wing loonie organisation
"No. I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on."
You have shown nothing - you have denied everything without proof
I know from exop[periance (of your "implant" witnesses, for instance) that it is a waste of my time asking you to link to that "proof"
You are a disgusting waste of space Keith - an ethnic cleanser denier writ largehttp://mudcat.org/blickifier.cfm
I'll leave you to wallow in your dishonesty and inhumanity (you have long forgotten that the VICTIMS of the ISRAELI REGIME are human beings)
Wallow away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 17 - 02:28 PM

I've given you the source of that quote and the veracity of the people who issued it

Yes and it is rubbish!
The source is Goldman's unverified claim supposedly made twenty years later and five years after there was no Ben Gurion to deny it.
You would never accept such shit from me.

They provide no prood whatever of the antipathy they claim

They did not need to. They were writing for a Jewish audience who would be well aware of it, and who would know if it was untrue.

Before I click on your latest link, or anyone else does, tell us what it leads to.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 03:17 PM

So a leading Zionist is a liar
Doesn't say much for the rest of them if he is prepared to denigrate Israel's greatest statesman
What king of an outfit are toy defending here?
Denials and lies- nothing but denials and lies
Booooooo- ring
Where are your links showing "that some are fake so none can be relied on".
You won't produce any which proves you are lying
And as most of these statements come from Israeli press reports - you are claiming them as liars as well
That'll do nicely
Seems you are on your own Keith
Your mate offered to prove my claiming I knew more than Irish statements and then did a runner
Doubt if he'l be back before Christmas
Even he appears to think you're not worth supporting
Don't forget those links now!!!!
I don't think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 17 - 04:29 AM

So a leading Zionist is a liar

Why not. He was hardly a "leading Zionist" by then though.
As Edward Tivnan said in his 1987 book The Lobby,
"Goldmann had created the Presidents Conference to prevent the kind of dissent among American Jewish leaders that he himself was now sowing. The raison d'etre of the group was to present a united front to the White House on Middle East matters. But, of course, that was back when Goldmann's friends were running Israel.
Now that [Menachem] Begin was running the Jewish state, Goldmann was willing to do anything to undermine his policies – including destroying his own pressure group."


Where are your links showing "that some are fake so none can be relied on".
You won't produce any which proves you are lying

I thought I had.
Please identify one that I have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 06:35 AM

"I thought I had.
Please identify one that I have not."
You are a liar Keith - you thought nothing of the sort
You have not proved a single one nor have you attempted to
You are lying through your teeth
You have enough of them all on this thread - show where you have disproved any
Are you so lacking in self respect that you continue to lie in public - over and over and over again
Sickening and now becoming embarrassing
Jim Carroll

The Lobby: JEWISH POLITICAL POWER AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY by Edward Tivnan (Simon & Schuster: $17.95; 288 pp.)
May 31, 1987|Steven L. Spiegel | Spiegel is a professor of political science at UCLA. His latest book, "The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America's Middle East Policy, From Truman to Reagan," won a 1986 National Jewish Book Award

"Edward Tivnan's "The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy" is a snide, sometimes bitter, largely trivial and even boring account of the role of the American Jewish community's efforts on behalf of Israel. Not as informed or as thoughtful as other critical accounts of pro-Israeli efforts in this country, Tivnan paints his story in black and white. Worthy of approval are Israeli and American Jewish critics of Israeli government policies, liberals, moderate Arab leaders, especially King Hussein, and American politicians who criticize Israeli policy. Tivnan bears no sympathy for conservatives either in Israel or America, the Likud Party in Israel, vociferous American supporters of Israel, including politicians, Jewish leaders and in particular the organization most closely identified as the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 17 - 10:31 AM

....but you can not identify one single claim of mine that needs proving.
Funny that!

I take it that you approve of Tivnan as he is so anti-conservative, so I did well to quote him in support of my case.
Another point to me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 11:22 AM

Do not be stupid Keith
Try these for size
You are a liar Keith - you have not responded to one
When you get round to showing where you have "disproved" any of these, there are plenty more in the pipeline
Shouldn't be too difficult - you are using "having answered these" as an excuse nor t to respond to any
Take your pick
Jim Caroll

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992
         
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 - 1999
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.
      
Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 - 2001
         
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 - present

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 01:13 PM

Well Keith?
Links to answers that you have given all all of these?
No/
Funny that!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 17 - 01:41 PM

I have not commented on any of them Jim!
You accused me of making claims without proof.
OK. What were they?

It would be a full time job to follow up the screenfulls of shit you put up.
You made an accusation against me, but as ever there is no truth in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 03:02 PM

"I have not commented on any of them Jim!"
You said you had responded toll of them and gave that as a reason for not trusting any of them
More lies
This was your claim
"No. I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on."
Then
"I thought I had. Please identify one that I have not."
Now
"I have not commented on any of them Jim!"
""It would be a full time job to follow up the screenfulls of shit you put up.""
One minute you are claimming to answered the points next minute you say you have answered none and say they are not worth answering
You are a serial liar, an atrocity denier and a supporter of State terrorism
"Another point to me I think."
And you make a Grand Theft Auto, point scoring game of a discussion on The Jewish People and Israel's mass murder of innocent civilians
You are one sick, antisemitic, attention-seeking cookie
I think you've proved that more than sufficiently Keith
Finished with you, you sad evil little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 17 - 05:42 AM

You said you had responded toll of them and gave that as a reason for not trusting any of them

If that is true, QUOTE ME!

I did say, "I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on."
I stand by it. Your quotes come from obscure, agenda ridden political sites that I have never heard of, not recognised media organs or news agencies.
Why should anyone believe them?
I showed that a quote you gave was a faked, edited version of what he really said according to Wiki-Quotes.
I gave a list of reasons why another could not be believed.

As usual when you lose you resort to lies, name calling and personal attack. It is your equivalent of a white flag.

Where are your links showing "that some are fake so none can be relied on".
You won't produce any which proves you are lying

I thought I had.
Please identify one that I have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 17 - 04:35 AM

Now that Jim's obsessional anti-Israel crusade has been stopped, perhaps we can resume the subject.
Labour has run a very successful election campaign and the Tories have been very inept.
The Tory lead has been closing dramatically and a repeat of their landslide in the Council elections seems much less likely.

May may have miscalculated badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 17 - 11:12 AM

I think a win for Mr Corbyn may be a poisoned chalice, and could end his career.
The biggest problem is Brexit, Mr Corbyn has always been anti-EU, while the Parliamentary Party are solidly in favour of retaining membership.....They are quite capable of political assassination once in power. Mr Corbyn is also at odds with the Parliamentary Party on other issues, i.e. the replacement of Trident.

A win for Labour given the present crop of MPs could lead to a complete breakdown of authority.....not a good thing when taking on the Bureaucrats of Brussels.

Personally I would prefer to see a modest victory for Mrs May, who at least will go into battle with a united force.
Mr Corbyn's day will no doubt come.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 17 - 12:24 PM

"once in power" ............Hmmm I think some factions of the party have had a bloody good go while in opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 17 - 03:13 PM

Labour getting nobbled in Scotland, which I'm sure will be more or less repeated, makes it next to impossible for them to win. If the gap can be closed to something like what was like in 2015, and the LibDems pick up a few seats, there's a remote possibility of a hung parliament I suppose but with the Tories being the far larger party. That would be very interesting in these new days of two-party politics. The implosion of UKIP is another intriguing factor. Corbyn has done a lot better than anyone really expected and Theresa May looks wooden and unattractive. Then there's the distinct possibility of a low turnout due to election fatigue/referendum fatigue/they're-all-crap-anyway syndrome. I think Keith may be right. Yes, I really did say that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 29 May 17 - 04:06 AM

I think it unlikely Labour win, but I don't think the situation in Scotland is quite so clear cut. The SNP did an incredible job last time, and repeating it would be difficult. Even one or two seats for Labour in Scotland could turn out to be crucial to the national picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 29 May 17 - 02:59 PM

Hi Steve

I understand what you are saying but I detect hope hope rather than expectation in your comments.

As we all know the polls cannot be used as anything like accurate.

I went to a birthday party yesterday where half of the 40 guests were from Cheshire and half from Liverpool.

From the comments almost all the Cheshire side will not be voting for Corbyn. No surprise here because they all voted for Brexit in the referendum.

But surprisingly, a large percentage of the Liverpool folk who voted against leaving said the will not be voting Labour any more and will be voting for Mrs May. This IS surprising because they usually vote Labour.

So it seems that forecasting accurately what will happen is almost impossible.

Regards

MikeL2

PS See you in Europe later in the year!!




,

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:03 AM

From the comments almost all the Cheshire side will not be voting for Corbyn. No surprise here because they all voted for Brexit in the referendum.

But surprisingly, a large percentage of the Liverpool folk who voted against leaving said the will not be voting Labour any more and will be voting for Mrs May. This IS surprising because they usually vote Labour.


So, half will not be voting Labour because they are for Brexit and half will not be voting Labour because they are for remaining. How does that work then? The Tories, goaded by UKIP, took to the polls to ask an unqualified and misled populace to make a decision that they should have made in the first place and because the country is split over it it is all the fault of Jeremy Corbyn?

Ah well. As they say around here, there's nowt so queer as folk.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:08 AM

All the parties supported a referendum.
They all believed that us "unqualified and misled" people would vote their way.

What qualification do you need to vote Dave?
Does not misleading work both ways?

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


What qualification do you need to vote Dave?
Does not misleading work both ways?

I did not mention any qualifications to vote did I? ask an unqualified and misled populace to make a decision. The qualification to vote is well known. I was talking about decision making. The qualification to decide how to run the economy should reside with those who are best advised. The populace were not best advised because both sides were misled.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:44 AM

The referendum campaign was a very unfunny joke from start to finish.

Already been to Florence this year, Mike, and we're off to Lake Como soon. Much later on we have a trip to Madeira lined up. Luckily, I bagged most of my euros before the pound collapsed! As for hope, I don't think Labour has got much chance. But if May fails to increase her majority, or ends up being the minority government, she won't be able to claim that mighty mandate she's been after in order to go and beat up the EU. That will be interesting. And she might not last long.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:58 AM

Hi Steve

We used to go to Madeira a lot. We found it to be a fantastic place.
I am sure you will enjoy it.

It is a bit steep.....no not the prices but the hiils. But I am sure you will love them.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 07:07 AM

Never been, Mike, but we're looking forward to it. We're staying just outside Funchal in a B&B with a view!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 07:41 AM

We are off to Bayeux in September all being well. Just a short break to visit the Mother in Law's final resting place but I am trying to get there for at least 4 days. Been before and I could spend a full day in the cathedral! Quite fancy seeing Lisieux as well. Anyone been?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 May 17 - 07:46 AM

Much talk of a land value tax in the media. I wonder how many labour voters this would impact? Just when the Labour prospects are beginning to worry the Tories, this stunning wheeze to generate income is splashed over the media. I wonder who is trying to sabotage who in this instance.
Will the lefty landowners abstain, abscond or simply switch allegiance?
This is normally the sort of dastardly deed that spineless politicians go in for once elected. Bleating about it prior to an election is electoral suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:28 AM

Ah, yes, a land tax. Apparently the Conservatives have come up with an average figure of £4000. Nice to see the figure come from someone without any vested interest in the outcome. And there's that sneaky "average". I am not saying it would happen but it is quite possible for all but the biggest landowners to pay the same as they do now in council tax and still treble the average if big land owners charges go up. That's maths, not politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:33 AM

Dave,
The Tories, goaded by UKIP, took to the polls to ask an unqualified and misled populace to make a decision

All the parties were in favour of a referendum, and what qualification should be required to vote in a referendum, and in what way was were we misled?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:45 AM

Any party voting against a referendum would have been committing suicide. There was little opposition to it in any case because everybody thought we'd vote remain. And we were scaremongered to by the remain side and promised £350 million per week for the NHS. Plenty more. Maybe you slept through it, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:46 AM

Promised by the leave side obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 09:31 AM

No mention was made of being qualified to vote. Only qualified to make a decision. 2nd time of saying. I expect the question will be asked again but after answering it twice it does get a bit monotonous.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 17 - 12:03 PM

Any party voting against a referendum would have been committing suicide.

Yes, so Dave was wrong to blame it all on the Tories.

No mention was made of being qualified to vote. Only qualified to make a decision.

The decision was made by the referendum vote Dave. Who did you mean was not qualified to make the decision by voting?

Steve, as you say, both sides made misleading statements that were challenged and debated openly for us all to be kept informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 17 - 03:44 PM

The money saved by leaving the EU was never "promised" to anybody.

The leave campaign said that it was money which "could" be spent on the NHS, meaning that it would be "better spent" on the NHS or any other worthy cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 04:14 PM

Rubbish. You're rewriting history. Go back and check your facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 05:10 PM

I have said over and over and over again that parliament should have made the decision rather than abdicating it to an ill informed and misled populace. The party with the overall majority in parliament at the time of choosing to put the issue to the people was the Tories. Even if the other parties disagreed it did not matter. They were in overall control. The buck stops there.

As to keeping us all informed try this for size

Vote Leave director admits they won because they lied to the public

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 30 May 17 - 05:31 PM

leave campaign said that it was money which "could" be spent on the NHS, meaning that it would be "better spent" on the NHS or any other worthy cause.

Ok, show me a genuine photo of a bus used in the referendum that referred to any other worthy cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 17 - 02:04 AM

Lies, the EU, the British electorate and the referendums:

1: Referendums seem perfectly OK to those complaining about them here whenever they give what they consider the right result. The British electorate seem well enough informed and qualified then.

2: The British electorate were lied to in 1973 when we were asked to vote to join.

3: The British electorate were lied to in 1975 when we were asked to confirm our desire to stay in Europe.

4: Over the years as the EU forced through it's political agenda people began to realise what was going on. Maastricht was almost a bridge too far, we objected and came a way with a rebate. Lisbon however was even too much for three other members of the Union (France, The Netherlands and Ireland).

5: Over the changes via more than 480 articles in the Lisbon Treaty the British electorate started to grumble and Gordon Brown promised the electorate a referendum on EU membership. That promise was reneged on when the original Lisbon Treaty was ditched and via a technicality was reintroduced by the EU Commission in a much reduced form that did not require unanimous Council of Ministers approval.

6: In the Conservatives 2010 General Election manifesto an EU Referendum was promised by Cameron. Unfortunately the Conservatives did not win the 2010 election with sufficient seats to form a Government and went into a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats who insisted that the promised referendum was abandoned.

7: Ever since Lisbon a small political party dedicated to getting the UK out the EU was becoming more and more vocal, started to threaten the voting base of all the main UK political parties.

8: In the Conservatives 2015 General Election manifesto the promise to hold a referendum on EU membership reappeared, this time they did win with a sufficient number of seats because the Lib-Dem vote basically collapsed. True to their word the Conservatives held the referendum and the vote was to Leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 02:53 AM

1: Referendums seem perfectly OK to those complaining about them here whenever they give what they consider the right result. The British electorate seem well enough informed and qualified then.

Read my lips.

I have said over and over and over again that parliament should have made the decision rather than abdicating it to an ill informed and misled populace.

This is true of ALL referendums. I disagree with them in principle whatever the result. The government of the day should have the bottle to make a decision on all major issues. It is what they are elected to do. It is what they are paid for. It is why we pay an army of civil servants to advise them.

2: The British electorate were lied to in 1973 when we were asked to vote to join.

3: The British electorate were lied to in 1975 when we were asked to confirm our desire to stay in Europe.

Yes and yes. Please provide examples of me complaining about the results in 1973 and 1975 :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 17 - 03:39 AM

The government of the day should have the bottle to make a decision on all major issues. It is what they are elected to do. It is what they are paid for. It is why we pay an army of civil servants to advise them.

Well judging from what came out the mouths of those elected politicians, who oddly enough Gnome, only seemed to adopt what their civil servants told them when it suited them. They appear to be less informed than most.

But as you seem to take the view that they should decide all major issues then I take it that you fully agreed with their decisions with regard to "Blair's wars".

The Government of the day is elected to govern the country and act in the country's best interests, politically, economically and in all matters concerning the security of the nation and the safety of it's population. When matters arise that dictate a major change (i.e. Whether we want to change our voting system, or, whether or not we wish to be members of the EU) then the entire electorate of the country must be asked to give direction, once those views are known it is up to the government of the day and the civil service to implement that decision in the best possible way in the best interests of the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:12 AM

But as you seem to take the view that they should decide all major issues then I take it that you fully agreed with their decisions with regard to "Blair's wars".

I take it you are having some difficulty comprehending what I am saying, Teribus. The government of the day, regardless of who they are, have a mandate to run the country on our behalf. They should do it. Whether we agree with what they are doing or not, it is their job. If enough people disagree, we have the choice to elect a new government. It is how democracy works.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:26 AM

Rubbish. You're rewriting history. Go back and check your facts

Ake was right.

The slogan on the bus was,
"We send the EU 350 million pounds a week
let's fund our NHS instead."

That is a statement of fact followed by a suggestion of how else it might be spent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:41 AM

Dave, did you ever speak out against referenda before that vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:43 AM

D the G. There is also a place in democracy for referendums. Many EU members have held referendums relating to the EU, including Greenland that voted for out. You frequently state that the populace is not capable of making a decision and that politicians are. Is papal infallibility shared among MPs upon election, or are they purely elected because the local electoral committees parade them before us. Is Boris the clown more qualified than I am to vote on leaving or staying in the UK. The fallout of a successful Brexit impacts on individuals in totally different ways and no doubt sways their voting decision.
The idea that MPs are superior beings more capable of voting for in or out is risible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:51 AM

I for one have spoken out against all referendums all my sentient life.

I note that you've admitted at last that you're a Tory, Teribus. I refer to the word "unfortunately" in your patronising history of referendums post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 05:11 AM

Yes, Keith. I did.

Iains

The idea that MPs are superior beings more capable of voting for in or out is risible.

It is indeed. They are far from superior beings but they are paid well to do a job. They are voted in to do that job. We fund an army of advisors and personal secretaries to help them to do that job and when they refuse to it, I think it stinks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:07 AM

Rubbish. You're rewriting history. Go back and check your facts

Ake was right. 

The slogan on the bus was,
"We send the EU 350 million pounds a week
let's fund our NHS instead."

That is a statement of fact followed by a suggestion of how else it might be spent.

So I ask you what I asked ake: can you give evidence of any other suggestion with similar prominence? Was there a bus saying "Let's fund our police instead" for example?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:18 AM

It was a slogan, not a manifesto!

It was debated in depth at the time. We all had the chance to weigh up the justifications and criticisms of and for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:38 AM

That sounds like a "No I can't".

So the position seems to be:

We have a potential £350m a week saving we can spend on useful things.
Here is our list of useful things we are prepared to.make a big thing of:
1. The NHS

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:42 AM

Dave,
Yes, Keith. I did.

Not on here Dave.
You made a couple of posts about the referendum debate but never disparaged the idea of actually having a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:45 AM

We have a potential £350m a week saving we can spend on useful things.
Here is our list of useful things we are prepared to.make a big thing of:
1. The NHS

There was not room for a comprehensive list on the side of a bus.
It was just a slogan.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 17 - 07:22 AM

Stop being so bloody disingenuous, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 07:22 AM

Buses can be repainted.

But if the list was longer, what is the explanation for why, out of all the possibilities, they chose the NHS? Was it at random? Or did they have a reason to select it and if so, what was it?

I suggest it was not accidental.

I also suggest it was to make people think the funds would be going into the NHS. To deliberately compose a slogan that appears to say one thing nut on careful reading says another is something to be ashamed of, not proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 10:46 AM

Not on here Dave.

Hardly surprising seeing as Mudcat forms around 0.01% of my life, it is first and foremost a folk music forum rather than a political site and it is full of people who have nothing better to do than try to win pointless victories.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 17 - 11:33 AM

Keith is not being disingenuous "D"....you are.
The slogan was "political speak", but it was not a lie.

If the slogan had said "we will spend that money on the NHS"...that would have been a lie, unless of course the government do spend it on the NHS, then it would be the truth.

"Let's spend the money on the NHS instead" is an invitation to consider how the money should be sensibly spent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 12:39 PM

Dave, during the referendum campaign you posted about the debate.
You did not mention that you do not believe in referendums then, so perhaps not a strongly held view of yours.
Mind you, we all thought that remain was going to win back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 12:46 PM

Today, Labour party member Philip Jones who allegedly accused a Jewish BBC journalist of being a "Zionist" after she conducted a car crash radio interview with Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended by the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 12:50 PM

It wasn't me who used the word disingenuous, ake, but we will let that pass.

As I have said several times, I go with the main Aquinas criteria for a lie: the intention to mislead. That is not the same as an untruth. Sorry if we disagree about something so fundamental, but there we are.

And you are right that there are alternative phrases that could have been used to make it clear that money was to be spent on the NHS, has that been the intention. Equally there are phrases that could have been used to make it clear it was only a suggestion has that been the intention. The lie is in the equivocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 01:02 PM

Whatever Keith. As you seem to know more about my views than I do maybe you can tell me what I think about the price of fish. Or genital warts. Or Justin Bieber...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 17 - 01:48 PM

The slogan was "political speak", but it was not a lie.


Bullshit. Right up there with "I am not a crook".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:24 PM

In my experience Greg, most politicians are "crooks"!

I am extremely sorry "D", that was careless of me and I of course withdraw the remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 03:12 AM

Dave, I do not claim to know anything about you, but anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them inevitably faces a credibility problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 05:10 AM

Just a few points on that Keith.

1. I didn't post anything at all on here between April and October 2016
2. My Facebook status throughout June 2016 reflected my views
3. I really could not give a shit whether you believe me or not
4. The people that do matter know the truth

Now, can we get back to something sensible?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 06:19 AM

That was a childish and stupid remark, Keith.

I don't think that all politicians are crooks. Paul Tyler, our MP for years, was no crook and neither was his LibDem successor Dan Rogerson. One of their Tory predecessors was, however. No names, no pack drill. Jeremy Corbyn is no crook and neither was Michael Foot or Jimmy Carter. Jo Cox was no crook (my sister knew Jo and her mother from Jo's childhood). It's an ignorant remark to condemn most or all politicians as "all crooks" or "all the same." We have to have politicians. They need both our close scrutiny and our support. If we don't take an interest in politics, which is quite hard work, or don't vote in elections, we'll get the politicians we deserve. If they turn out to be "all crooks," etc., then we should be looking to ourselves. We put them there.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 06:39 AM

"Anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them inevitably faces a credibility problem. "

In what sense is that childish or stupid Steve?
I think it a reasonable observation.

Dave, I referred to your posts about the debate made in April 2016.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 08:06 AM

It is not reasonable. It's a smear. If you want to question someone's integrity you need to show your evidence. Actually, it's trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 10:20 AM

Ah, the ones where we were taking the piss because you said you had nothing more to say and then posted again a dozen or so times? Tell you what, Keith. I have stated quite categorically that by putting important issues to a referendum the government of the day are abducting responsibility. I have always said it. I probably always will unless I am convinced otherwise by events I cannot yet forsee.

You do not believe me. I could not give a shit what you believe. Do you really think that there is any point continuing down this road?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 10:29 AM

Abdicating responsibility that should read. Although abducting could be an option...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 10:59 AM

Speaking of crooks.....

Brexit leader Nigel Farage is 'person of interest' in FBI investigation into Trump and Russia.

FBI interested in former Ukip leader's ties with people connected to US president and WikiLeaks' Julian Assange.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/nigel-farage-is-person-of-interest-in-fbi-investigation-into-trump-and-russia

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:40 AM

"Anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them inevitably faces a credibility problem. "

Sorry but that remains a fact, not a smear.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:48 AM

So, who only mentioned their disapproval after the event then, Keith?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:50 AM

Dave says it does not apply to him anyway, so who is being smeared?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Dave, cross posted.

If you mentioned it before it does not apply to you.
I don't do Facebook, but you did post about the referendum here and did not mention your disapproval here until after the vote went against you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 12:05 PM

You have never mentioned lots of things as well Keith but you will not find me saying that because you have not mentioned them before they cannot be true. As ever...

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 12:19 PM

It is not a fact. It's your severely unconsidered opinion. It's childish, it's unnecessarily provocative and it's trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 02:21 PM

"Anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them, inevitably faces a credibility problem. "

Sorry but that remains a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 05:09 PM

And you're trolling. That's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 04:27 AM

No. That is just your latest unsupported and plainly wrong assertion.
Show where I have trolled if you can Steve.

It was perfectly reasonable to point out when Dave first asserted his opposition to referendums here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 08:14 AM

Posters who always accuse others of trolling are themselves trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 08:21 AM

BRITISH ELECTIONS 2017 A Corbyn win would deeply worry many Jews, and chill UK ties with Israel

Most Jews made up their minds about Corbyn long before the campaign began.

A long-time critic of Israel and pro-Palestinian activist who has had an unfortunate knack of consorting with a motley crew of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, the Labour leader is, perhaps, most famous in Jewish circles for having described Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends."

Unfortunately for his party, new revelations during the campaign will simply have reinforced many of these perceptions. Earlier this week, the Labour leader was forced to deny that he participated in a wreath-laying in 2014 at the grave of one of those involved with the Munich massacre. But Corbyn's excuse — that he simply participated in a wider event marking Israel's 1985 bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunis, itself a response to the murder of 15 Israeli civilians in Palestinian terror attacks — rather demonstrated why so many Jews distrust him.

That story was swiftly followed by the release of a 2010 interview in which Corbyn described Hamas as "serious, hard-working and… not corrupt."

TOI

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 08:36 AM

If you make an unreasonable and provocative remark that calls someone's integrity into doubt, as you did with Dave, you are trolling. A lot of people who voted either way in the referendum didn't exactly megaphone their principled opposition to referendums from the rooftops until after the result. Yes I'm against referendums and always have been, but yes I voted, forced into that unenviable position on a massively vital issue by a baby-faced ex-Etonian clown who was publicly fellated by a dead pig. The fact that a referendum took place at all will ignite opinions, and this one in particular, which endured an extremely disreputable campaign, even more so. The campaign highlighted precisely what is flawed and downright undemocratic about referendums, not least the fact that just 38% of the electorate are dragging us out of Europe and into disaster. You have no right to suggest that people on the losing side whinged afterwards only because they lost and you make it even worse when you aim that slight at one person in particular who you don't actually know. Your position is without evidence and is incredibly childish to boot.

Bobad, you are stalking. Again. So what's new? I note that you post but have nothing to say. So what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 09:01 AM

British Jewish Voters' Choice: Anti-Semitism Today, or Tomorrow

Granted, the messages of Trump supporters are usually more crudely anti-Semitic, while the Corbynistas use the code-word "Zionist." When challenged, they say they're just critical of Israel and it has nothing to do with Jews. The conditioned reflex, however, is identical.

Why do both Trump and Corbyn attract anti-Semites? Perhaps the more pertinent question is: What is it about them that somehow gives license to anti-Semites, who rarely parade out in the open in this day and age, to out themselves and break cover?

In Corbyn's case there seem to be two answers. There's the anti-Zionism which has long been part of his radical leftist ideology that gives them a semblance of respectability. And then there's the current vogue for conspiracy theories on the extremes of politics. Where there are imagined conspiracies, there will always be imaginary Jews – sorry, Zionists.

So for British Jews, and in fact for all decent British voters, the choice next Thursday should be simple. Don't vote for a candidate who just can't help but attract anti-Semites.

Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 09:53 AM

Don't worry about it, Steve. I discovered a long time ago that Keith marches to a different drum to us. Hence my repeated use of

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Everyone seems to know it. I have accepted and even gone so far as to say that neither is right - they are just both different. Keith has a different view on that but, once again

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 10:58 AM

Steve,
If you make an unreasonable and provocative remark that calls someone's integrity into doubt, as you did with Dave, you are trolling.

Yes, but I did not.
(I am often the victim of that myself though.)

I merely pointed out that Dave did not express his dislike of referendums until after the vote went against him.

That is in no sense trolling, but you always resort to vacuous name-calling when you lose an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 11:02 AM

BBC today,

"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has failed to combat anti-Jewish discrimination, according to a senior figure in the party.
The chairman of the Jewish Labour movement, Jeremy Newmark, would not say whether Labour's track record on dealing with anti-Semitism would cost the party a significant number of votes at the general election. But he does see it as a cause for concern.
"Jeremy Corbyn appears to have failed to understand the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism in the same way that it's understood by most of its target group," he said.
Labour MP Wes Streeting - a frequent critic of Mr Corbyn's leadership - has also criticised the party's record on the issue.
"I don't think many Jewish voters in my constituency have been very impressed with the way the Labour party as a whole have responded," said Mr Streeting. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40119103

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 11:55 AM

I think it is very obvious professor that you revel in your perceived role as "Victim"

You claim preceived ills far more than anyone else on this forum.

Please don't bother to reply for two main reasons, firstly I don't give a flying **** what you think and secondly I've got two gigs to go to tonight one I will be contributing too, and two gigs tomorrow where once again I will be contributing to one.











I'll put money on it the idiot replies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 12:06 PM

I think it is very obvious professor that you revel in your perceived role as "Victim"

Rather like his juvenile whining pal Twitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 01:37 PM

"I merely pointed out that Dave did not express his dislike of referendums until after the vote went against him."

Why did you point it out? What's your point? And, third question, why am I giving you another chance when we already know what your stupid little game is?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 04:25 AM

Steve,
Why did you point it out? What's your point?

Because Dave had made a big issue of his antipathy to referendums, but never mentioned it before the vote.
I offered some perspective.

Dave, making that observation involved no issue of morality, language or interplanetary travel.
You trot out that silly little litany whenever you have no reply to what is said.
Just trite and boring Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 05:23 AM

You trot out that silly little litany whenever you have no reply to what is said.

There was nothing to respond to was there? You have already said that your observation did not apply to me

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Dave, cross posted.

If you mentioned it before it does not apply to you.

So I was not replying to anything. Just making an observation.


Just trite and boring Dave.

So, why respond then Keith?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 08:32 AM

Offering perspective? You were trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 02:01 PM

Dave,
There was nothing to respond to was there?

No, but Steve chose to anyway. Perhaps he did not believe you.
Perhaps he had a credibility issue.

So, why respond then Keith?

I didn't for the first dozen or so times, but I have had enough of it now. Boring and trite Dave.

Steve,
You were trolling.

So you keep saying, but you keep failing to identify any such.
It is just vacuous name calling.
You resort to that whenever you lose an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 02:23 PM

Constantly accusing others of trolling is, in itself, trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 03:31 PM

I don't think it is quite as boring and trite as 'you lose' but we can always put it to the vote

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 03:57 PM

They're two cheeks of the same fat, chocolate-covered, unwashed arse, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 04:07 PM

Oh I wouldn't say Dave was a "fat unwashed" arse?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 04:29 PM

Why the quotes? Why miss out chocolate covered? We need to know these things! Oh, hang on. Just realised who it was. Maybe we don't after all...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 06:56 PM

Well Dave "chocolate covered" is a bit over the top, and the quotation marks indicate that the words "fat" and "unwashed" were coined by some other.
I have no means of determining THEIR veracity.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 11:17 PM

Veracity and quote marks are unrelated. We've known that for all of the time you put things in quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 17 - 03:47 AM

And, as ever, he entirely misses the points of both mine and Steve's posts. I suppose he just saw the word arse and had to react. Pavlov's dog is alive and well and posting on mudcat.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 17 - 08:13 PM

OK, I'd better confess. The "fat, chocolate-covered unwashed arse" remark was nicked shamelessly from the Daily Mash. Google it and you'll get what I regard as the finest-ever article from the Mash. Enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Thompson
Date: 05 Jun 17 - 02:37 PM

I looked at the Daily Mash for the first time and liked it, thanks, Steve. For your delectation,
Waterford Whispers News on the British election.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 04:14 AM

From the Mash today.
Could this "Tom" be you Thomson?

A MAN is convinced colleagues share his pro-Labour views after he ranted at them about all other parties being evil scumbags.
Administrator Tom Logan won over his politically wavering colleagues by warning them not to be selfish evil bastards who hate the poor and needy.

Logan said: "I've explained that if they voted Tory it would make me physically sick and I'd have to disown a disgusting person like that.
"Pete said he might vote Lib Dem but he's obviously changed his mind because he didn't stick up for them when I said they were just neoliberal Tory vermin in disguise."
He added: "The key to persuasion is to use intelligence combined with charm and wit."
Workmate Nikki Hollis said: "I really don't agree with Tom's view that voting Green makes you 'an enabler for Tory class genocide' but it's pointless arguing with him.
"I've got a nasty feeling it's going to be like 2015 when he couldn't believe Labour lost and got so drunk he soiled his 'Team Miliband' tracksuit."
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-sure-workmates-will-vote-labour-after-saying-theyre-scum-otherwise-20170606128892

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 01:35 PM

Following Guido's story this morning revealing Jeremy Corbyn addressed an extremist rally including hundreds of members of Al-Muhajiroun, a spokesman for the Labour leader has been forced to distance Jezza from the banned group:

    "Jeremy addressed a broad-based rally in support of Palestinian rights. It was a public event and he was in no way responsible for the views of all of the thousands of attendees. Jeremy condemns al Muhajiroun in the strongest possible terms."

A rally at which audience members chanted about gassing Jews was a "broad based rally" says Corbyn's spokesman. Says it all…

UPDATE: Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has responded to Guido's revelations:

    "Jeremy Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister in just two days, but this latest revelation about his association with extremists shows exactly why he is unfit to lead the country. He has a long track-record of siding with people who want to damage and attack the UK and there can be no excuse for his decision to address this rally."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 01:39 PM

Looking in at this latest page in this monster thread tells me one thing. I haven't missed much by deciding early on that it wasn't worth following it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 02:18 PM

That's Guido Sarducci, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 04:35 PM

Anti-Semitic Labour BANNER depicting Theresa May wearing star of David earrings harkens back to dark days of Nazi Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 07:02 PM

That's Guido Sarducci, right?

It's actually Guido Fawkes but anyone who is a fan of Father Guido Sarducci is alright by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 07:36 PM

Desperate stuff, bobad, showing how worried you are that the most honest man of integrity in British politics today is going to do a damn sight better than you expected.

"Says it all..."

Really? In your own words, and we don't mind single syllables, WHAT does it say? Take your time now...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 17 - 08:14 PM

Two Jewish kosher restaurants victims of arson attacks in Manchester, police treating it as anti-Semitic hate crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 17 - 06:33 AM

Jewish restaurants attacked? Well let's see if the antisemitism allegation sticks, shall we? At present, two plus two makes five for you, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 17 - 01:08 PM

Anyone seen today's right wing rags? The Scum is the worse with 'Jezza's Jihadi Comrades' but the Daily Heil isn't far behind with 'Apologists for terror'. Blatant use of the latest terror attacks to smear Corbyn and the Labour party. Politics of the gutter and the right wing Barron's obviously shit scared. These tactics are nothing to do with free press or free speech. Just multi-billionaires trying to save their arses. Sadly, thousands will probably believe them :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 17 - 02:16 PM

Did they actually say anything that was not true Dave?
Corbyn could sue them if so, and the damages would be spectacular.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 Jun 17 - 02:42 PM

Hi Steve

<" the most honest man of integrity in British politics today is going to do a damn sight better than you expected.">

Oh yeah. And do you believe him when he says that Dianne Abbott is ill when she should have gone up against the Home Secretary on TV ??

As Shadow Home Secretary she is n embarrassment.

Let's see how it goes tomorrow. A lot of very marginal seats here in the North West.

regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 17 - 03:22 PM

So you really believe Corbyn supports Jihadis then Keith? You know damn well that it is all smoke and mirrors with the gutter press. They use weasel words, insinuations and know that many people will not read past the headlines.

MikeL2. Did you believe May when she said that she would not call an election before 2020? Just asking...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 17 - 05:29 PM

Diane has been off-message for ages, Mike. If you know more about her her health issues than the rest of us, then let's be having it. Otherwise, your dark talk is just Daily Mailism. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 02:54 AM

I think its pretty obvious what her health issues are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:05 AM

Tell us then. Out with it. Put up or shut up, doc.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:07 AM

Dave,
May when she said that she would not call an election before 2020?
She changed her mind Dave. So what?

Now, did either of those publications actually say anything that was not true Dave?

Lies told against a Party leader on the eve of an election would be a massive issue, but no-one except you has picked up on it.
Has it been denied?
Has legal action been announced?
Have broadcasters or rival publications reported a vast challenge to the democratic process?

Or are you just talking bollocks Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:13 AM

So you really believe Corbyn supports Jihadis then Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:32 AM

How would I know Dave?

Now, did either of those publications actually say anything that was not true?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:48 AM

The call by Jeremy Corbyn for May's resignation after the London Bridge attack was very quickly back-tracked upon by Corbyn (You see Shaw he's allowed to change his mind as well) for very good reasons.

The resignation was called for because as Home Secretary Theresa May had reduced the number of police officers in England by 20,000 and according to Corbyn & Co., that was what made the terrorist attacks easier. Unfortunately AFTER the resignation call went out people did some checking and found out the following:

1. Those 20,000 officers would not have made any difference at all - In the same time frame anti-terrorist police resources had been increased by May.

2. Corbyn takes great pride in boasting that he has consistently voted AGAINST every piece of anti-terrorist legislation put in front of him.

3. John McDonnell supported by Corbyn has called for both M.I.5 and police firearms units to be disbanded completely. Both these units are essential in anti-terrorist operations.

Corbyn's crocodile tears and Band-Aid plaster response and solution that emerged after Manchester and London was a Laboour pledge to put 10,000 more police on the streets - So did Theresa May only get it half wrong? The reason the numbers of police officers had to be reduced was because of the complete and utter bollocks the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 had made of the country's finances - there was no money to pay for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:59 AM

Also, crime had fallen and continues to fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 04:01 AM

The rumour is that Keith enjoys dangling his willy in a bucket of custard while the vicar throws cream cakes at him.

Have I said anything that is untrue?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 04:22 AM

And before you start with the 'no one has mentioned this except you' nonsense take a look at the satirical Southern News Network's take on the same topic.

Other satirical publications are available...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 05:18 AM

Having been unable to challenge or counter what Keith A of Hertford has said the Gnome comes out with this nonsense:

Dave the Gnome - 08 Jun 17 - 04:01 AM

The rumour is that Keith enjoys dangling his willy in a bucket of custard while the vicar throws cream cakes at him.

Have I said anything that is untrue?

In relation to Keith A of Hertford what is untrue challenges our rotund, bald, bespectacled gnome?

1: No evidence at all of there being a rumour.

2: While what is said may be true of someone called Keith somewhere on this planet, there is nothing whatsoever that specifically links gnome's reported "rumour" to Keith A of Hertford

3: As to the "dangling willy" thing, this is probably a case of jealously on the part of the gnome as - wait for it - "Rumour has it that he hasn't see his own willy for at least nine years, hiding as it does under the overhang of his beer gut".

4: While what is said may be true of some vicar somewhere on this planet, there is nothing whatsoever that specifically links the vicar mentioned to anyone known to Keith A of Hertford.

5: The "rumour" is exposed as a lie as Keith is allergic to custard and being renowned for not having a sweet tooth would not go anywhere near a cream cake even if his life depended upon it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 05:26 AM

But have I said anything untrue, Teribus? A simple yes or no will do.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 05:30 AM

You don't need evidence for a rumour. You can just start one. There's a rumour that there's a God but there's no evidence at all for it. And I don't know why you're preaching to me about Theresa changing her mind. It wasn't me wot mentioned it, Mr Accurate. Off you go now, Teribus. I know you tell us that you are not aligned with any political parties, but your Tory needs you. Vote early and vote often.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 05:36 AM

More evidence that others believe that the Scum and the Daily Heil stink

Apologist for Snickers: Twitter users hit back against attack on Corbyn

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 05:37 AM

An excellent piece about Diane Abbott by the cookery writer Jack Monroe. This perspective hadn't occurred to me before, and it puts the bullying crap from our resident fascist thugs into perpective:

https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:00 AM

Dave,
The rumour is that Keith enjoys dangling his willy in a bucket of custard while the vicar throws cream cakes at him.
Have I said anything that is untrue?

Yes, all of it.
There is no such rumour.
You made it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:05 AM

Well it's a rumour now. I've been spreading it around like wildfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:08 AM

Dave the SNN that you linked to is a spoof site with a staff of one.
You also refer to Twitter!

Now, did either of those actual publications actually say anything that was not true Dave?

Lies told against a Party leader on the eve of an election would be a massive issue, but no-one except you has picked up on it apart from SNN and some Tweets.

Has it been denied?
Has legal action been announced?
Have broadcasters or rival publications reported a vast challenge to the democratic process?

Or are you just talking bollocks again Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:12 AM

Great piece, Jack. It isn't hard to imagine that an equivalent piece could be put together about Jeremy Corbyn.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:14 AM

There is no such rumour.

Everyone I have spoken to has heard it.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:27 AM

Same here, Dave. And the version I'm spreading has even more gory details.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:30 AM

You make liars of yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:34 AM

You call us liars but cannot prove that Keith. That is called an unsubstantiated accusation. I thought you were opposed to those?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:36 AM

...and I am only doing exactly the same as those newspapers you so robustly defend are doing but on a much smaller scale.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 06:48 AM

Are you starting a rumour that I'm a liar, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:14 AM

Dave the Gnome - 08 Jun 17 - 04:01 AM

The rumour is that Keith enjoys dangling his willy in a bucket of custard while the vicar throws cream cakes at him.

Have I said anything that is untrue?

:D tG

The "rumour" started by you Gnome - under oath I do not think that we could find anyone who had ever heard it before the date stamp given. You challenge anyone to state if anything you have stated is untrue which automatically means that YOU believe your statement to be true. One person called Keith can claim with total certitude that "the rumour" is completely untrue.

Now what has been said by any reporter in the media that is untrue about Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott? In response to what has been written and said about them by reporters there have been no denials, instead we have been regaled with rather limp and implausible accounts in an attempt to explain the reports.

The election of a Labour Government under Corbyn would be an absolute disaster for the United Kingdom on every level imaginable. It took Blair and Brown having been handed a country whose economic and financial health was undoubted. In the course of 13 years they basically managed to completely trash it - 13 years, Corbyn & Co will bankrupt the country in the course of one Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:21 AM

Steve Shaw - 08 Jun 17 - 06:48 AM

Are you starting a rumour that I'm a liar, Keith?

No rumour Shaw, it has been proven and clearly shown on this forum that you most certainly are a liar - or had you forgotten this?

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:29 AM

I don't think I have ever voted conservative, even in my youth, but I am about to break the habit of a lifetime.
Mrs May will get my vote, as the exit from the EU is the most pressing issue facing the country.
I believe the election was called in an effort to give Mrs May a decent majority to fight or cause and The Consrvatives are the only party capable of giving the country what they voted for....an end to "Freedom of Movement of labour within the EU.
I have long been a Scottish Nationalist, but the EU issue transcends all others including Scottish Independence. It also transcends the election of a Labour government or what is laughingly referred to as "A Progressive alliance".

Were Labour to be elected now, within weeks Mr Corbyn would be knifed in the back and the Blairites would seize power.....Tony may even make a triumphant return to lead the gory bunch.

Please think before you vote, those of you without the ideological lock down.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:33 AM

Having lost the argument you resort again to posting drivel.

Dave, the papers did not invent the allegations against Corbyn. I have seen him faced with them on numerous interviews and seen them in the media many times.
They have been posted on here too. Bobad has provided many quotes on the subject.

So, those papers were referring to well established incidents in his past, and have printed no libel.

Has it been denied?
Has legal action been announced?
Have broadcasters or rival publications reported a shocking affront to the democratic process?

No. Just you.
You are you just talking bollocks again Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 07:47 AM

But I have still told no lies chaps. That is the only point in question. Just like the newspapers. May be smoke, mirrors, misdirection and, to coin Keith's word of the day, bollocks but if anyone would care to sue me over it I would welcome the challenge

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 09:24 AM

That was quite a nifty rumour about your arse and those old women up Blackpool Tower, wasn't it, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 11:01 AM

Dave, the papers did not invent the allegations against Corbyn.

They may not have. I don't know. What I do know for certain is that they invented the sensationalist headlines only hours before the election. Why have we not seen other publications using the same smear tactics? Because the Scum and the Daily Heil are only fit for wiping your arse on.

Or cleaning custard off your willy...

DtG

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

Ah Shaw so I now know of two rumours that have no substance, and nothing alters the fact that you are still a proven liar.

Nothing "smoke and mirrors" about what the press have been saying about Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott - I see that you and the Gnome are keeping well away from that topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 11:13 AM

I've heard that rumour about KAOH here in Ireland, it must be quite widespread and seeing as it's been published on the internet can I presume it is true?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 11:44 AM

You remind us that you are a liar too Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 11:50 AM

Hmm

I am in Ireland at present. That is truth.

I first heard the rumour here. That is truth.

I first heard the rumour on a website. That is truth.

So professor which bit am I lying about as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 01:15 PM

Did you know that shares in Premier Foods, owners of the Bird's Custard brand, went up from 40p to 41.5p around midday today? Funny that. Wonder if the are expecting a boost in sales?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 02:39 PM

Raggytash - 08 Jun 17 - 11:13 AM

Ah the faithful little lap-dog comes trotting along wagging his tail.

What's the matter Raggy are you totally incapable of independent thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jun 17 - 03:22 PM

I'm sure I called Teribus Keith's attack dog some months back. Can't be arsed to find it so I am sure we will be told I am lying but it makes me wonder just who is capable of original thought

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 02:11 AM

Gnome, little lap-dog Raggy's intervention cannot even stay on script. Perhaps that is because he isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer:

"I've heard that rumour about KAOH here in Ireland"

I take it that by referring to KAOH he means Keith A of Hertford then of course he is lying - You weren't f**kin' stupid enough to specifically name him specifically in your original post where you "introduced" your "rumour".

If Raggy doesn't get what I am on about perhaps you could explain it to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 03:37 AM

I have a message

To those who have spent months trying to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party

To those who support the smear tactics of the gutter press

To those who believe that Nigel Farage is a man of integrity where Jeremy Corbyn is not

To those who want Scottish independence but voted Tory

It is a simple message and, I must admit, it is not my own. It may be trite and childish but the temptation is too great.

You lose

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 04:07 AM

No.
Corbyn has achieved a swing towards Labour, largely by a 10 billion bribe to middle class students.
May has achieved a swing away from the Tories through ineptitude.
The Tories still won.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 04:14 AM

I did not mention anything about the Tories winning or losing. Did you not read my post?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 04:18 AM

Numerically but not politically, Keith. There is already talk of calling another election. That"s not a win. The Tories are so weakened they will have to have their own little coalition of chaos. That is not a win.

The media threw everything they had at Corbyn including thirteen pages of charges he loves terrorists and he emerged stronger because enough people realised how vacuous it was. They have used up their entire ammunition and will have nothing for next time. That is a win.

But enjoy having the highest number of seats. They are occupied by a divided and vengeful party.

Make the most of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 06:27 AM

The Tories "won," did they, Keith? Well they are in a far worse position than they were two days ago. They are hobbled. And, twice in a year, via stupid decisions to go to the country in their own interests and no-one else's, they have dumped on this country. You call that "winning?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 07:45 AM

Don't think anybody "won", which when all said and done is rather unique as far as elections go. The fact still remains that the Conservatives have the largest number of seats in the House of Commons and it will be Theresa May who will be asked to form a government - NOT Jeremy Corbyn.

I dare say that a deal will be cobbled together with the DUP to keep the cart on the track and because SF do not sit in the Commons means that the results in Northern Ireland work to the Conservatives advantage.

Nicola Sturgeon was the leader who looked shell shocked, from 56 seats she lost 21 of them - 12 of those to Tories. Two massive scalps taken with Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond. When they get back to the day job the SNP will have to put their Indyref2 on the back burner and get down to doing what they get paid for and should have been doing since 2007 - governing Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 08:30 AM

Theresa May is guilty of making severe misjudgements and has destabilised this country. There are big decisions ahead calling for good judgement and she has shown a massive deficiency in that regard. That's what this vote reflects. What you are doing is DEflecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:00 AM

The Tories "won," did they, Keith? Well they are in a far worse position than they were two days ago. They are hobbled. And, twice in a year, via stupid decisions to go to the country in their own interests and no-one else's, they have dumped on this country.

I agree with all that, and have already acknowledged that Corbyn ran a better campaign with a better manifesto.

The winner of an election is the one with the most seats, and usually the biggest vote share.
The Tories had both. They won.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:15 AM

The people who have destabilised the country are the "remoaners" who refused point blank to accept the democratic decision of the electorate of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

Brexit is still on track and after last night the Conservatives now find themselves allied with the DUP the larger of the two political parties in Northern Ireland who campaigned for Brexit with the caveat that they do not want to see a "hard border" separate Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland. Now then Shaw if they can't tell you what is required then nobody can and the subject of the "Irish border" is one of the first subjects up for discussion according to the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:18 AM

Well let's see, shall we? Your "winners" are in disarray. They have a totally discredited leader who's not fit to enter the brexit negotiations and there's no-one to step into the breach. They have had to make a pact with a detestable bunch of bigots. Their hard-brexit plans are in shreds. Some "winners."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:20 AM

No-one has blocked the referendum result. What are you on about? Would you like to see free speech curtailed, is that it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:22 AM

Your "winners" are in disarray

Labour has been in disarray and riven with internal disputes for some time.
Is it all smoothed over now?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:24 AM

You've seen nothing yet, Keith. The right-wing backbench Tory knives are being sharpened as we type. Keep your back to the wall at all times, Theresa!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 10:31 AM

She has earned disapproval.
Any party would consider changing leader after such a blunder.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 12:20 PM

The Tory party is split asunder. That's why Cameron called a referendum and that's why May called this election. They were both trying to either placate or subdue their right wing. They both got it abysmally wrong, demonstrating that they have no vision, no judgement and couldn't run a pissup in a brewery. It also demonstrated that they were prepared to exploit the voters ruthlessly towards their own self-interest. That's archetypal Toryism for you. Open your eyes and stop bleating about Labour. The electorate have shown the Tories that it doesn't like negativity about the other side. All that came from Theresa May in this election. None of it from Corbyn, who ran a positive campaign based on a sound, costed manifesto.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 12:49 PM

No Teribus, I am in Ireland and I heard the rumour about KAOH proclivities whilst here.

No doubt about that.

Just a point though. I addressed a question to him, why do you feel you have to answer on his behalf. Could it be because you do not comprehend the written word ............ no surprise given your lack of education.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 04:23 PM

Come on Raggy, heel boy, heel.

Do your pals have a stick that you can fetch?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 05:37 PM

" a sound, costed manifesto."....you must be joking, it was the old political tactic of promising everything.

We are now in the position of having to seriously consider living within our means.   I thought better of Mr Corbyn.
"Electability" is meaningless unless the economy is functioning at an efficient level....at the moment we depend on cut price immigrant labour......not a socialist principle surely? Also zero hours contracts, lack of housing, public services grinding to a halt, NHS in meltdown. How do you cost all these problems, run a full scale nationalisation project and hand out freebies to all and sundry.
It is simply impossible.

If Mr Corbyn cannot be honest with the public he is no better than the Blairites who surround him.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 17 - 06:08 PM

If Mr Corbyn cannot be honest

Is he more or less honest Than your hero Trump, Ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 05:03 AM

Greg, what was the point of that intervention?

I made a point regarding the UK election and you start on about Donal John? It does seem that the President wants to get Americans back to work, encourage détente between East and West, cut down on illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism......I agree with these aims and would expect any UK government to pursue the same policies.

Your political establishment AND ours is pretty corrupt and I suppose you see any attempt to break that cabal as an attack on "democracy", when in fact it is the beginnings of proper democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 09:30 AM

Akenaton, why do you insist on calling DONALD John Trump Donal. Can his parents of Germanic and Scottish stock not choose their own name for their son.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 09:44 AM

So, Ake - would you answer the question, or is all you can do tap dance?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 09:56 AM

Well Greg neither are establishment politicians, so they have half a chance of being honest. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 17 - 12:43 PM

So as far as you are concerned, Trump- a confirmed serial liar, a sexual predator, a man who consistently stiffs his employees and contractors, who has declared multiple bankruptcies to escape paying his just debts, who ran a fake "university" & thus bilked millions of dollars from unsuspecting "students"- this to you is an "Honest" man?

Explains quite a lot, Ake, and makes you totally unfit to render any sort of judgement on Corbyn - or, for that matter, on anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 17 - 04:11 AM

Greg, get a grip, don't you realise how the capitalist system works?
All the things you mention with the exception of "sexual predator" are built into that system, in fact they are necessary to keep the system performing.
As you know I am no supporter of said system, so don't think I am an apologist for it......just a realist.


As far as sexual predator is concerned, I seem to remember a certain Democratic hero called Clinton who could teach Donal John a lot about how to deal with young female staff.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 17 - 04:40 AM

So that makes it OK then. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 17 - 09:02 AM

Ake, more great tap-dancing, but you STILL haven't answered the question. As per usual (always?).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 08:19 AM

"Jeremy Corbyn promises lifelong free education as he demands an overhaul of the economy to stop private firms using technology to destroy jobs"

In other words he's a Luddite - how progressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 08:33 AM

Ah, the Daily Mail headline, word for word.


Now the BBC reports thw same speech starting with "The state should work with business to help the UK maximise the benefits of automation and other technological changes, Jeremy Corbyn has said.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest".

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

Corbyn is off in cuckoo land as per normal.
"Technological change need not herald 'era of mass unemployment'"

I would like to see the nuts and bolts of that explained. I would argue that we are at the forefront of massive redundancies due to computerisation, automation and robotics. Front desk banking is evaporating wholesale and automatic checkouts springing up everywhere. Many traditional white collar jobs are capable of being automated. Even segments of education are more efficiently followed online. All these changes are leading, or have led, to massive redundancies. What professions will utilise this brave new world, of a highly educated workforce that will seek positions in a steadily diminishing workplace?

The Luddites rioted because of lost employment. Seems to me around the corner looms a situation where the average Luddite would be regarded as a scruffy little choirboy compared to their modern day brethren.
Chavs on steroids springs to mind. Perhaps this is why the police is increasingly militarised.

Tech change need not herald 'era of mass unemployment'

Typical Labour ploy. Good soundbite with no attempt to cost as someone else will pay or as good Celts perhaps the debt could be paid in the afterlife. Whatever!-They are distinctly divorced from reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 09:16 AM

I would argue that we are at the forefront of massive redundancies due to computerisation, automation and robotics.

Then you are around 35 years behind the times. People have been saying that since the PC was first introduced. The reverse is a lot nearer the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:01 AM

Talking rubbish as usual gnome. And you link goes back to the 19th century. Don't believe we had computers or robotics then. The first desktop computer I used was 1974 (HP2100) The development since then has been phenomenal.



https://www.google.ie/search?q=job+losses+due+to+automation+uk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=uEFeWZ33A4rVgAbgi

The links above beg to disagree with you. In fact they totally reject your supposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:29 AM

Ah, predictions, predictions. I seem to remember being told that we'd all be retired by 50 after a working life of two or three days a week and that life would be easy and filled with leisure. Instead, jobs today are more high-pressured than ever, you're watched and assessed all the time, you're expected to work countless extra hours for no extra pay, work-life balance has gone out of the window. So much for those predictions, eh? So you carry on making your apocalyptic predictions, Iains. I'll just sit here waiting for the day when it will finally be shown that you were just making a complete arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:45 AM

In fact they totally reject your supposition

Not my supposition. it is A study by economists at the consultancy Deloitte and far from being a supposition , the Study of census results in England and Wales since 1871 finds rise of machines has been a job creator rather than making working humans obsolete

Do you ever actually read anything or do you just keep arguing for the sake of it?

Steve - Sorry but you are behind the times as well. It is already well established that he is a total arse :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:47 AM

Yes, predictions.

We have always predicted new technology would wipe out jobs. It doesnt matter in that sense whether we are talking factory looms or computers. It is certainly true that jobs disappear (I sometimes point out how the photocopier did to copy clerk, and thence the rationale for teaching everyone Copperplate handwriting). But our experience is that manu jobs just change and many unheard of jobs appear - imagine explaining a web designer to a Victorian.

The unanswerable question is whether the total number of jobs afterwards is the same or greater than before. While there are certainly "downs" our experience is that the trend has always been up. Maybe not this time, who knows, but there's no real reason to think that our ability to spot the new jobs coming along is any better than that of our ancestors.

What we do know, though, is that life long education is a great way of dealing with the lack of these new skills. We can't do it just on people up to say 25 and convert everyone over say 35 into the unemployable as the demanded skills change. So Corbyn is absolutely right to link life long education with new technology in the UK's interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:49 AM

Shaw there is no dispute that advances in technology replaces jobs. The replacement jobs require a higher skill set. This inevitably leaves some behind as a permanent reservoir of unemployed. So far the argument suggests other jobs are created to make up for those displaced.But today the rate of change is so fast that what was true in the past may not be true in the future. To assume the slack will automatically be taken up could turn out to be horribly wrong and there is no way to make an accurate prediction one way or the other. You may find in the future that your smug complacency is somewhat in error.

https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 10:54 AM

The replacement jobs require a higher skill set.

Sometimes, but often the skill set is lower, or simply different.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 11:05 AM

Who says I'm complacent? I'm saying that predictions in this context have a habit of not coming true, and I think that the world is far too complex and dynamic for your simplistic one to be worthy of consideration. And if you insist on using my surname I'll just call you Inane from now on.

So, from hereonin, you're Inane.


Er, "from hereonin?"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 11:07 AM

And today I hear that robots are replacing sex workers in brothels. More job losses...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 03:19 PM

Not my view Shaw. I merely echo what is thought to be a real possibility by those better informed to judge than either of us.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/job-losses-automation-pwc-bob-moritz-2017-4

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 03:42 PM

But you completely ignore the opposing viewpoint that I posted because it does not fit in with your per-defined ideals?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jul 17 - 04:06 PM

I know I am not alone in this but when I left school computers (not that I knew what a computer was) were the size of a small room.

When I retired many years later I had spent much of the previous 25 years sitting in front of a computer, sitting on my desk, in order to conduct my role.

Strange isn't it that the machines that were supposed to sound the death knell of my employment prospects kept me in work for all those years.

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

Not your view, Inane? But this is a discussion forum. I really do want to hear people's views, not some tedious media pundit's views. Naturally, I anticipate your particular views with relish.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:44 AM

Bound to happen I suppose
After the worst Prime Minister in history )Barring Appeasing Chamberlain"
studiously pours her party's majority down the toilet and attempts to make good by doing deals with terrorist-linked parties", the valiant rabid-right desperately fights a rear-guard action
Nice to read of 'equality of opportunity' and 'jobs for all' being describes as 'Luddism'
Puts the state of our present system squarely where it is "and the lord sayeth "those who have shall have even more"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 03:17 AM

Shaw I know it must be an effort for you but try to follow the thread.
I made my view above of how things might progress. The latest post of mine merely gave support to my view. Simples really. So go try to generate an argument elsewhere-that really is the only reason for your last post, is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

Shaw I know it must be an effort for you but try to follow the thread. I made my view above of how things might progress. The latest post of mine merely gave support to my view. Simples really. So go try to generate an argument elsewhere-that really is the only reason for your last post, is it not?

Errr, and yours isn't?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM

F**K me it's letters of apology that are being demanded now from a female MP for criticising "The Great Leader" now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 06:13 AM

I wonder what the source is for Teritowellings latest outburst. He has once again failed to give a link to his source.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 06:35 AM

It is hard to be sure but I *think* it is a reference to Roy Bentham criticising Luciana Berger as a result of her resigning from the shadow cabinet in the wake of the EU referendum. His collegues distanced themselves and she has issued a statement in support of Corbyn. Much ado over nothing, methinks, if that is the reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 07:33 AM

Rag, I think this is the story.
I am surprised you did not know about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/labour-mps-critical-of-corbyn-fear-deselection-after-get-on-board-warning

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 07:37 AM

"Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/momentum-win-control-labour-branch-demand-mp-apologises-criticising/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 07:59 AM

So a "Trade Union Liaison Officer" (Roy Bentham) makes a statement. Some people pounce of it, a poster here tries to make a BIG issue of it but does not link to the article where they found it. Then an article is found by another poster, that article that clearly states:

"local branch Officials on the Wavertree executive later dissociated themselves from Bentham's comments"

The article then goes on to say that a spokesman of Momentum then adds:

"It was a post by a local Momentum group, not by Momentum national. When we found the post we got in touch with the local group and they were happy to take it down as it didn't accord with Momentum's aims and values. In an organisation of 27,000 members, people will sometimes express views that aren't representative of the organisation." "

So we have a statement from is shot down from on high and some people try to blow it out of all proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

The claim was that an apology was demanded of a female MP for criticising the leader, and it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:43 AM

I cannot see anything in the article that demands an apology, perhaps you could copy and paste that sentence or phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:50 AM

""Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. " "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:52 AM

Hi Raggy, thrashing about and gnashing your teeth again? Waz-up they lost your stick doggie?

Here is my post you cretin:

"F**K me it's letters of apology that are being demanded now from a female MP for criticising "The Great Leader" now."

That Raggy if you fail to recognise it is a plain straightforward STATEMENT OF FACT - the demand is unheard of in British politics, or in British society in general, where everybody is not only allowed to hold a personal opinion, but they are also allowed to voice that opinion freely without fear or constraint - Except, as it would seem, in Corbyn's Momentum driven Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:56 AM

That's not what the article says is it professor. The article says:

"Luciana Berger was told she needed to 'get on board quite quickly now"

Now please find any bit that mentions an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 10:57 AM

Eh up professor, someone's woken up your Rottweiler !!

Bad dog, no biscuits !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 01:22 PM

He's not a dog - he's a stoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 01:39 PM

"Hi Raggy, thrashing about and gnashing your teeth again? Waz-up they lost your stick doggie?

Here is my post you cretin:"

What a disgrace. You should be sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:05 PM

He doesn't need this job, Steve. He has a new career and an alternative reality writer.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:12 PM

Now please find any bit that mentions an apology.


""Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. " "

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 02:31 PM

You keep mentioning "apologise" professor, but I have not seen THAT word in the article.

So please tell us where "APOLOGISE" occurs.

Simples !

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 04:22 AM

ttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3959629/jeremy-corbyns-momentum-supporters-take-over-local-party-and-demand-apology-from-luciana-be


https://labourlist.org/2017/07/clp-demands-berger-apologise-for-corbyn-criticism-after-momentum-seizes-control/

For those that cannot use a search engine!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:06 AM

For whatever reason I could not get your first link to open Iains.

I can use the internet however and the article cited by the professor made no reference to an apology.

So my next questions are who is Roy Bentham, what on earth is a "Trade Union Liaison Officer" and does that role given him the authority to "advise" a sitting MP on that they can and cannot say and what that sitting MP can or cannot do.

In other words is he a jumped up little oik shouting his mouth off. You may want to recall that:

1. "local branch officials of the Wavertree executive later dissociated themselves from Bentham's comments"

2. "It was a post by a local Momentum group, not by Momentum national. When we found the post we got in touch with the local group and they were happy to take it down as it didn't accord with Momentum's aims and values. In an organisation of 27,000 members, people will sometimes express views that aren't representative of the organisation."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:08 AM

Rag,
You keep mentioning "apologise" professor, but I have not seen THAT word in the article.
So please tell us where "APOLOGISE" occurs.


""Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "APOLOGISE" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. " "

Who wants 3000?
My gift.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:20 AM

For those who don't see the spin, here is a clip from the Sun's article in the first link (the address is missing a leading 'h')

"Last night the new members of the committee vowed to hold her more accountable for her actions.

Roy Bentham, who booted out a Liverpool council cabinet member from his spot on the committee, told the Liverpool Echo: "Luciana needs to get on board quite quickly now."

Do I need to draw people's attention to how ONE person has been translated into several?

Remember the other committee members disassociated themselves from the comments the individual made.

(Also Roy didn't "boot out" anyone, any more that any person elected "boots out" their predecessor.)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 06:20 AM

Is this really the best you can come up with, Keith? Wassamatter? Run out of antisemitism slurs, have we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 06:44 AM

In fairness to the professor it was his attack dog who first raised this.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 12:52 PM

Steve, I clarified a point for Rag that he said he wondered about because no link had been provided.
What is your objection?
Why are you always on my case?
What has "anti-Semitism slurs" to do with anything?

You are just trying to stir up shit and cause trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 04:45 PM

You really are a lying little toe-rag aren't you professor

"Steve, I clarified a point for Rag that he said he wondered about because no link had been provided!

Iains, bless him, provided a link. You and your rottweiler did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:57 AM

I do not lie Rag.
You posted,
"I wonder what the source is for Teritowellings latest outburst. He has once again failed to give a link to his source. "

Teribus probably thought a link unnecessary as the story was widely reported.

You wondered about it so I provided TWO LINKS just 80 minutes later, before anyone else did.

You lie, I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

Your link did not contain the word APOLOGISE did it.


Iains link did contain the word APOLOGISE.


We still do not know Terikins source because he has failed to provide a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 02:10 PM

Your link did not contain the word APOLOGISE did it.

Yes.
What is wrong with you?
One more time!


"Ms Berger has subsequently been told she needs to "get on board quite quickly now" and "apologise" for past criticisms of Mr Corbyn. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/momentum-win-control-labour-branch-demand-mp-apologises-criticising/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 02:44 PM

You didn't link to the Telegraph originally though did you, you linked the the Guardian. The link you provided was:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/labour-mps-critical-of-corbyn-fear-deselection-after-get-on-board-warning

In that link there is no mention of the word APOLOGISE

Futhermore Terikins didn't provide any link, so no change there.

In your next post there was no "blue clicky" and I have far better things to be with my time than follow empty posts.

(PS. I have now found one has to subscribe to read the whole article)

Eventually Iains DID provide a link, all credit to him for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:08 PM

Raggy, Terrikins didn't bother to provide a link because Terrikins has long since realised that the likes of yourself, "Good man" Shaw, Jom, Gnome, pfr, etc are only interested in arguing points and no matter what "evidence" (Usually easily substantiated) put in front of you, for you yourselves to check - you generally do not bother, blinded as you are by your idiotic ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:21 PM

Terrikins has long since realised that the likes of yourself, "Good man" Shaw, Jom, Gnome, pfr, etc are only interested in arguing points

Why bring me in to it it Terilove? I have not really been involved.

As it happens, Keith's original link does not contain the word 'apologise'. It really is quite simple. Click the link. Do a search on the word. See if comes back with anything. It doesn't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:10 PM

Ah more passive-aggressive crap from Gnome.

Apparently now that the Labour Party have realised what scrapping University Tuition fees is going to cost - it is now no longer an election manifesto pledge - with a bill estimated at over £100 billion the Shadow Labour education spokesperson has said that scrapping these fees is only an ambition and that it will not become a firm pledge until Jeremy & Co find some way of paying for it. The lady also conceded that the cost of tertiary education is NOT putting off students from lower income families.

Just as well Corbyn didn't get in just think of the anger of all those student vote he tried to buy once they found out that it was all just an electioneering stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:59 PM

There is no manifesto in operation at the moment as there is no election in the offing. And I don't know where you magicked a hundred billion from. Even the most rabidly anti-Corbyn Daily Mailite zealot hasn't come up with a figure anything like that. Have a nice cup of tea and have an early night. You'll feel much better in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 07:57 PM

The overall student debt is around £75 billion. It's a meaningless number as most student debt will not be paid off. The actual cost of scrapping the debt will be about eight billion a year or less. Whilst this is not insignificant, can we please lose the scaremongering?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 04:32 AM

Nothing passive-aggressive in my posting. Just facts. Sorry if they don't fit in with your predefined notions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:04 AM

I gave two links in quick succession, before Rag or anyone else could respond.

Rag, Telegraph links are too long for the Mudcat link maker.
I gave the address.
You can subscribe for free to read several articles a week.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:29 AM

Telegraph Link

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:31 AM

Yup that works.

So much for "Rag, Telegraph links are too long for the Mudcat link maker"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:35 AM

The Link

This should be your "missing link" professor

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

For future reference to anyone interested there is a finite limit on the number of words in the link maker so sometimes a link is not created correctly. It is easy to get round. Just create the link and, when you paste it into your message, add the words that have been left off, usually the tail end of the link, manually. Seemples :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 05:50 AM

The link was a simple cut and paste Dave. No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 06:04 AM

So it seems May intends to call on Labour to work with the Tories on policies they agree on and find a constructive way forward on the others.

Sounds unlikely to succeed but it would be interesting to hear our warring faction here make some proposals the other side will support.

The floor is open ...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

At first glance this may seem to be a positive move, however it can also be construed as a sign of weakness or if things go pear-shaped a chance to shift the "blame" to other parties.

It should be interesting to follow this particular story.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:00 AM

As far as I am concerned that is the was governments should work. In some ways a minority or shared administration is better than one that can railroad everything through by sheer force of numbers. Compromise and mutual agreement is something that could help stem the flow of the more extreme policies on all sides. Maybe here as well although I would hold out less hope of getting a compromise from some on here than from either May or Corbyn :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:35 AM

I suggested this weeks ago, we are leaving the EU and it is important that unity is shown in obtaining the best possible terms.

The main sticking point is "Free movement", everything hinges on that, a red line for the EU....they cannot allow associate membership or any other get out unless we accept "Free movement" and we have realised that our infrastructure and public services simply will not stand the additional numbers arriving here.
We have also begun to realise the societal problems involved in a mass influx of other cultures and religions with the associated terrorist implication.

Mr Corbyn has always been anti EU and if he is indeed a statesman, he will use his present popularity amongst the young to make these negotiations end positively for Britain.
He could ditch his principles for short term political gain, but I think that would prove counter productive for himself and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 08:49 AM

"The overall student debt is around £75 billion. It's a meaningless number as most student debt will not be paid off. "

If that is the case, why are we wasting the money in trying to educate these people? Why is the debt not being paid? Are there simply not enough highly paid jobs to go round? Are they too stupid to pass the exams? Are the courses not designed for the work available? Are too many dropping out early?

We need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:16 AM

Hmmm, well of course it is easy to work together if one side gives in entirely which a little how that reads, ake.

But that isn't the challenge: It is to find things you agree on. So it is possible? Can ake or Teribus make a Brexit proposal - not for everything but one small corner - that they genuinely think Steve Shaw and Dave G could support? And vice versa?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:33 AM

Ake. One view of student debt:

Some may never repay it

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:54 AM

I am pretty amenable when it come to compromise. I have no idea if the others mentioned are but on the basis that we are all the same under the skin I don't see why everyone cannot come to some agreement. We have one commonality at least - We all like folk music!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 10:59 AM

Hate to disillusion you Dave but I know people who only like traditional folk music, sung by men in white woolly jumpers, who have their finger stuffed in an aural orifice. Conversely I also know people who detest that sort of format.

I somehow doubt if we could all agree on folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 12:13 PM

My apologies, O Dave of Gnomic fame and also to the other names I mentioned. The names were 'for illustrative purposes only' and were not intended to single you out specifically.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 12:30 PM

No apology needed! The biggest problem with internet forums is that you never really know the people you are talking to you. I never purposely hide anything from anyone but unless something like this crops up we don't think of giving out information. I guess we sort of assume that people do know us but that is often not the case.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 12:32 PM

We must work within "the possible" "D" and our options are limited due to the EU red line on FOM....I think we must be prepared to walk away and leave it to the remaining nations to put forward THEIR terms.
They cannot damage or blackmail us any further once we are out and today Australia has promised a huge trade deal after Brexit allied to Donal John's promise of good terms from America.
Mr Corbyn can raise his political stature and profile by putting the country first, and to be honest he really has no alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 17 - 03:38 PM

"They cannot damage or blackmail us any further once we are out"

What !

Do you live in cloud cuckoo land ?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 02:36 AM

By what was said in the Commons yesterday, it appears that Mr Corbyn is more interested in making political capital than assisting in seeing through the Brexit negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.

A bad move in the long term, a statesman would have taken the chance offered to prove himself. I also note his delivery has altered since the election to the hectoring manner that he once despised.

I really hope that he is not just another jumped up agitator.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

Get real, akenaton. The EU's top priority is to hold itself together. It is not going to give an easy ride to a dissident country which has threatened the whole edifice by voting to leave. That applies both during the coming negotiations and after we leave. We will still be trading with the EU big-time.

If we ever leave. It's looking doubtful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM

Labour MP Jess Phillips has criticised Left Wing abuse of Yvette Cooper, which she warned is part of a wider campaign to bully and intimidate female MPs.
Ms Phillips wrote on Twitter: 'This can no longer be seen as individual incidents, this is targeted to control isolate and manipulate.
'It has to stop.'

Corbyn promised a kinder and gentler politics, but there is no sign of that from his supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 02:35 PM

I see another conservative MP has blotted their copy book, using racist terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 03:46 PM

Yeah, so let's spend a year discussing the Tory party's "serious racism problem."

Kick it off, Keith. We know how you love balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 04:10 PM

Thw view from the Independent

And I would also question how much of a punishment withdrawing the whip is. I suspect she will continue to follow any whip anyway so Mrs May is unlikely to be too worried about it eating the majority and as no timescale has been given she can be welcomed back into the fols whenever suits.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 05:29 PM

Plenty of grist to the mill in that Indie piece, Keith! Then there's Boris and his piccaninnies...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 05:37 PM

No good bringing that up lads. It's just a n****r the woodpile...

Whoops!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 05:45 PM

Damned asterisks. The only place I've seen the word she used spelled in full was in the Guardian.

It was "nigger," by the way. 😉

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

I was being uncharacteristically sensitive to save the delicate sensibilities of our right wing colleagues...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 05:20 AM

Anne-Marie Morris's use of the N word was deplorable, and the Party expressed its disgust at once.
Could it have been handled better?

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

The bullying I posted about is a much wider and more serious issue than a one off comment by one MP in an unguarded moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:46 AM

Oh, that's the sixth time a Tory has used that racist expression and we have only her word and the word of her fellow Tories that she's not a racist. Then there were those Tory sex parties for which underage boys were hired. I suppose there was no bullying there then! Then Andrew Mitchell with his plebgate... Keith, you're clutching at any straw once again. You'd have thought by now that you and your fellow Tories would have learned that people don't want to hear smears and negativity any more. The approach has just managed to lose May's majority for her. Cast out your Tory planks before you worry about Labour splinters. You need to change your obsession to telling us what your own tawdry side are going to do. So far, due to a multitude of Tory balls-ups and a distinct lack of vision, your side have left the country rudderless, at the mercy of a bunch of sectarian thugs and with brexit going down the pan. You have better things to do than to hang on to sore-loser Yvette's sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:30 AM

Interesting correlation between the right wing press and racism in this article. Something that has been previously denied on here.

We need to make sure that Murdoch, at least, does not get his way and take over the whole media. Sign the petition.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:12 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?

No.
Her statements were anti-Semitic in context, advocating the transportation of the Jews out of Israel.
I am slightly shocked that you can not see that racism.

Morris in her stupidity used an expression once not considered racist here but now is because of the N word.

Steve,
Keith, you're clutching at any straw once again.

I am not and never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:15 AM

Just how far do you have to go back to find that using the "N" word was not considered racist, certainly before I was born over 60 years ago.

Clutching at straws just doesn't come in to it. Displaying your own racism certainly does.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:25 AM

The expression appeared in an Agatha Christie novel and no-one objected at the time.
In current editions it has been changed.

Wiki,
"Commonly used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, usage has declined since then, and use of the phrase by public figures has often been followed by criticism over the offensiveness of the term "nigger"."

It probably became unacceptable in US earlier than here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:29 AM

For **** sake Agatha Christie died in 1976!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 11:34 AM

"United Kingdom
In the UK in recent years, the occasional use of this phrase by public figures has normally been followed by an apology.[5][6][7]
2007, Bedfordshire County counciller Rhys Goodwin, stepped down as chairman of the environment and economic development committee: "...During a debate on heavy goods vehicle traffic in the county, he wanted to argue that a particular problem in Bedfordshire is the amount of trucks on the roads connected with quarrying. But he used the unfortunate figure of speech before sheepishly rephrasing his point.'[8]
Goodwin, who was 74 at the time, said: "There was no racist intent at all. For 50 years of my life that was common parlance, with no more a derogatory connotation than the symbol on a jar of marmalade."[9]
2008, Lord Dixon Smith, Conservative frontbencher, used the phrase in a debate on the Housing and Regeneration Bill: "Of course, the nigger in the woodpile, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already pointed out, is that it still incorporates what I call the hangover of the new towns legislation." He immediately apologised to the House. His Lordship, also in his seventies, later commented to journalists that the phrase had been "in common parlance when I was younger".[10]
2009, Dick Denby, of Dick Denby Transport uttered this phrase on the BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show (Tuesday, 1 December) during a discussion on the merits of 83 foot long HGV's. To his credit he did say that perhaps he should not have used said phrase. Jeremy Vine agreed he should not have used it and later apologised to Radio 2 listeners who might have been offended.

Ireland
In November, 2007, in relation to a debate on the Gaelic Players Association, Fine Gael Senator Paul Coughlan asked "Can the leader kick it into play and give members an update? Who is the nigger in the woodpile?". There was no call for an apology.

Australia
David Lord, an ABC News Radio presenter was forced to apologise after using the expression. On 22 February 2007, Alan Jones, another radio presenter, was heard to use the same phrase.[11] There was no call for an apology."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 12:07 PM

Your posts are becoming ever more pathetic, do yourself a favour and stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 12:36 PM

They both said stupid things for which they were both suspended. The biggest difference is one is Labour and one is Tory. It comes as no surprise to see you supporting Morris, Keith. Everyone else has now seen the hypocrisy so my work is done.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 12:59 PM

And Naz Shah did NOT "advocate the transportation of Jews out of Israel." That is a plain lie, and, what's more, you've stripped the remarks she made totally out of context. It seems that there are no depths to which you won't stoop. And stop taking us for fools. We have better memories than you seem to think. And go and tell your lies to the people of Bradford West who elected her with one of the biggest majorities in the country.

"The expression appeared in an Agatha Christie novel and no-one objected at the time."

Bwahahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:09 PM

It comes as no surprise to see you supporting Morris, Keith.

I comes as a surprise to me!
I do not and have not defended her.

Use of the N word in any context is indefensible and I think she should be sacked and probably will be.

I would say the same for Shah had she not admitted the anti-Semitism she spouted and made her peace with the Jewish community.
I do say the same about Livingstone and others guilty of racism.

That is a plain lie,

No, it is a plain fact that she herself owned up to, so what is your opinion of it worth?
"Problem solved" she said about a graphic of Israel transposed onto USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:14 PM

When was that Christie novel published, Professor?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:23 PM

1939 Greg.
The N word was also in the title.
The last time it was reprinted in UK under the original title was 1977, and in Australia 1980.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:24 PM

I repeat. She did NOT call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel and no amount of fudging from you can hide the fact that you have LIED about her remarks in a most scurrilous and smearing way. The whole episode is online for all to read about, so who do you think you're trying to fool, Keith? And no Labour Party member has been found guilty of racism. You are living in a racist, bigoted fantasy world of your own. You are a total disgrace to yourself and to this forum. Don't post any more until you decide to start telling the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

She did NOT call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel

She said what I said she did.
Her meaning was clear and she admitted it herself.
I have not lied.
I would take her word about her own statement over yours any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:37 PM

BBC,
"Naz Shah: My words were anti-Semitic"
"Labour MP Naz Shah has said the comments which saw her suspended from the party were anti-Semitic.
Ms Shah apologised in April for online posts, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States.
Labour has now reinstated the Bradford West MP, who in her first interview about the controversy blamed her "ignorance".
"I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," Ms Shah told BBC Radio 4's World At One. "

"The MP said that when she looked back she thought "how stupid I was and how ignorant I was".
"The truth is that some of the stuff I have since looked at and understood, I didn't know at the time," she said.
Ms Shah said she now understood the connotations involved in the words she used.
"The language I used was anti-Semitic, it was offensive," she said. "What I did was I hurt people and the language that was the clear anti-Semitic language, which I didn't know at the time, was when I said, 'The Jews are rallying.'"

"Ms Shah said she had been on a learning journey in recent months and had received "amazing compassion" from the Jewish community.
"I didn't get anti-Semitism as racism," said Ms Shah. "I had never come across it. I think what I had was an ignorance.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36802075

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 01:42 PM

Whatever, Keith. I am not going to go round in circles again. I have put my point. You have put yours. Anyone interested can decide which is nearer the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 04:46 PM

My last post noting the gross errors in the professors previous post has been deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 05:10 PM

I'm losing patience with you here, Keith. NAZ SHAH DID NOT SUGGEST THE TRANSPORTATION OF JEWS OUT OF ISRAEL. That's what you said she said. That is not what she said, nothing like. Please do not tell any more of your lies. We are not stupid and we know what your agenda is. Get back to the source, Keith, remind yourself what she actually said and apologise to all the people on this forum who you mistakenly take for fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:14 PM

LOL, Shaw would have us believe that what Naz Shah suggested is that the country that is Israel should be dug up and transported holus-bolus to the U.S. It's noteworthy that she has recognized her anti-Semitism, too bad that Shaw isn't man enough to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 06:16 PM

Go to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 01:53 AM

I suggest you just wind it up as well, Steve. Everyone already knows what was actually said and the have the full context and circumstance. It is only the odd few point scorers and those who cannot stand to lose that keep trying to change it to their advantage. You are right. They are wrong. Anyone important knows that. Don't give them the oxygen they need. Just my 2p

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 05:33 AM

Steve, you actually called me a liar for repeating what she said about her own comments.
When she said "Problem solved" about that graphic, she was clearly advocating the removal of the Jews and she admitted she did.

You are clearly incapable of recognising blatant anti-Semitism, perhaps because of your own position.

The Labour Party denounced her comments as anti-Semitic, and suspended her for them.
The Tory and Lib-Dem Parties agreed that the comments were ant-Semitic.
She herself accepted that her comments were anti-Semitic.
I was right.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 07:25 AM

Dishonest, dissembling, disreputable, disgraceful. You are not in the least addressing what I accused you of doing. It's very simple. She did not call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel as you claimed she did. Either address that or just shut up about it is my advice to you. You're dead right, Dave. This idiot simply isn't worth bothering with.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 07:38 AM

My prediction skills astound me at times

Me, 13 Jul 17 - 01:53 AM

It is only the odd few point scorers and those who cannot stand to lose that keep trying to change it to their advantage.

Keith 13 Jul 17 - 05:33 AM

I was right.
You lose.

Gnostrodamus the Gnome :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 08:16 AM

"Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."   The Guardian




This is the message written beneath the image titled "Solution forIsrael-Palestine Conflict" posted by Shah:


Israelis are most loved by Americans. Americans will welcome Israelis with open arms into their homes.

America has plenty of land to accommodate Israel as its 51st states.

Israel can have a real safe Jewish state surrounded by friendly states.

America will no longer have to spend $3 billion tax payer money per year for Israel's defense.

The transportation costs will be less than 3 years of defence spending.

Palestinians will get their land and life back. Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference.

Oil prices will go down, inflation will go down, whole world will be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 12:25 PM

She did not call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel as you claimed she did.

Yes she did, with her comment on the graphic of Israel transposed to USA.
She admitted it.
The Guardian confirms that she did. (See Bobad's Guardian link.)
We were right about that, and you were wrong.
Sorry.
You lose.
(Dave, I bet you wish you did not raise the Shah issue again!)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 03:42 PM

Dave, I bet you wish you did not raise the Shah issue again!

Sorry, you lose.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 07:30 PM

"You lose."

You've lost it. All you have to do is go back to the statements she made. It's so easy to see that you are lying in order to resurrect your sorry one-track anti-Labour agenda. I've had enough of this. Persist away, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 05:39 AM

Dave said,
"Everyone already knows what was actually said and the have the full context and circumstance."

He was right about that at least.
Apart from your funny foursome here, everyone knows what has been reported in all the media, that she said and meant what I posted.
That is where I got it from.

You have seen it reported by the BBC and the Guardian.
There is plenty more out there. It was reported everywhere.
You have produced nothing to support your case, because there is nothing.
(Or will you produce something now? Ha ha ha!)

She did advocate the transport of Jews with her comment on the graphic of Israel transposed to USA.
She admitted it.
The Guardian confirms that she did. (See Bobad's Guardian link.)
We were right about it, and you were wrong.
Sorry.
You lose.
(Dave, I bet you do regret raising this again!)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 06:01 AM

Now let me think: what should we have for tea tonight...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 06:04 AM

"However, on 5 July 2016 her suspension was overturned and she was reinstated" (wikipedia)

Note professor: HER SUSPENSION WAS OVERTURNED AND SHE WAS REINSTATED.

Now that doesn't sound like someone has lost, does it. In fact she was returned at the 2017 election with an increased majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 06:07 AM

We had a great day yesterday at the Great Yorkshire Show, I know it's in Yorkshire but it is VERY good.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 06:43 AM

Did it cost owt?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 06:52 AM

Oh aye, tha doesn't get owt for nowt in Yorkshire, although I did buy a whole Colston Bassett Stilton ..... 7.5 kilos (or 16 Lbs) for next to nowt in the cheese auction.

That should keep me going for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 07:26 AM

You'll have to plough your way through that at a rate of knots, won't you? I thought Stilton needed eating young. Last night in an eatery we discovered an amazingly good Cheddar-style cheese from Wales called Hafod. Clean, strong and tangy, beautiful texture in the mouth. It's organic and made in small quantities only from unpasteurised milk. Have you tried Stichelton? It's basically Stilton made with unpasteurised milk (which is why they can't actually call it Stilton). I reckon it's superior, but only if you can get it freshly-cut. Once cut it oxidises quite quickly and isn't so good. Another amazing blue is Bath Blue. Same consideration applies. Once it's starting to darken it's nowhere near at its best any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 07:39 AM

It will be cut in 16 pieces of 1 lb, I'll let my mates have some and freeze the rest, It freezes well.

That said I won't be buying any for a while !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 10:25 AM

Dave, I bet you do regret raising this again!

Sorry
You lose.

Twice in one thread - Want to go for the hat trick?

Not been doing much cooking or culinary exploration lately but I have been having fun and games with the car. Ford C-Max. 162000 miles on the clock and been a belter. Trouble is it has an electronic parking brake and that has packed in. Will cost £00's to fix - More if I get a new one. So Just bought another C-Max as a stop gap until I go for something smaller when I retire. The new one is a bit older but has only done half the mileage. Trouble is, that also has an EPB but seeing as this one has only just gone I expect at least another 80,000 out of the new one :-) £1675 with a service and full MOT. Old one was a 1600. New one is 2 litre with a six speed box. Looking forward to getting it on the motorway.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 11:11 AM

Rag,
Now that doesn't sound like someone has lost, does it.

Certainly not, loser.
I admire what she did.
She went out and found the truth and made amends for what she had said out of ignorance.
You four should do the same.

Dave, in what sense have I lost.
Hard evidence has been produced proving Steve to be wrong, and us, Bobad, Teribus and I, correct.
Guardian, "Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."

Steve claimed that to be a lie, and you all backed him.
It was the truth.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 12:04 PM

The only thing we're in danger of losing is the will to live as you continue with your interminable, deluded prattle. You only ever read what you want to read so there is never any factual basis for having a sensible discussion with you. It's a serious character defect of yours. Good old Naz said sorry, moved on and whacked her Tory rival into oblivion in the election, getting one of the best majorities in the land. Those Bradfordians eat mardarses like you for breakfast. You're yesterday's man. The horse is dead. Why not curl up with a nice book (history, last 30 years, living author, bought from decent bookshop, natch). And a nice piece of cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 12:56 PM

Dave, in what sense have I lost.

Dave, I bet you do regret raising this again!

You lose your bet because I don't. Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 01:27 PM

Steve Shaw,
She did not call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel as you claimed she did.

The Guardian,
"Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."

I believe the Guardian, and every other broadcaster and publication that agreed.

How did they all get it wrong Steve?
How do you know better than them?
Where does you information come from Steve?

From your silly, empty head.
That is why you can find nothing and no-one who agrees with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

no-one who agrees with you.

Wrong. You lose again, Keith.

Hat trick! Well done.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 02:01 PM

Hmm I don't think I have EVER posted on here about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve. If I have please find my post.

That not only makes you a liar (once again) but a loser !!

Sorry guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 03:53 AM

no-one who agrees with you.
Wrong. You lose again, Keith.

Who are they then Dave?

Hmm I don't think I have EVER posted on here about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve. If I have please find my post.

Hmmm I don't think anyone has suggested such nonsense Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 04:00 AM

Steve Shaw,
"She did not call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel as you claimed she did."

BBC,
"The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

Steve was wrong, and we were right, according to the Guardian and BBC and every other media organ that reported it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

Who are they then Dave?

Use your imagination, Keith. I am not going to spoon feed you.

Now, as I said before, I am not going to go round in circles again. I have said my bit. You have said yours. People can make up their own minds. Unless you have anything new to add continuing is pointless.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 05:07 AM

"Hmm I don't think I have EVER posted on here about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve. If I have please find my post.
Hmmm I don't think anyone has suggested such nonsense Rag"

Have you forgotten your post:

"Steve claimed that to be a lie, and you all backed him"

Your post professor 14 June at 11.11 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 05:49 AM

Rag, so no-one claimed anything "about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve."
That was just nonsense, as I said.
I did suggest that you and Dave backed Steve.
If you say you do not I will apologise.

Dave,
Who are they then Dave?
Use your imagination, Keith. I am not going to spoon feed you.

My imagination has failed on this one.
Who are these people who also deny that Shah actually said what she, the Guardian and the BBC all say she did?
Spoon away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 06:10 AM

I posted:

"Hmm I don't think I have EVER posted on here about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve. If I have please find my post"

That's pretty clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 06:26 AM

Like a spiral in a spiral
Like a wheel withing a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever spinning reel...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 11:35 AM

Rag,
"Hmm I don't think I have EVER posted on here about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve.

Hmm I don't think that anyone EVER suggested you did!
Is that clear enough for you?
How do you come up with such random shit Rag?

Dave, you say you do not regret raising the Shah issue.
You should because it has made you and Steve both look ridiculous.
(Rag does it to himself!)

Steve Shaw,
"She did not call for the transportation of Jews out of Israel as you claimed she did."

BBC,
"The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

Steve actually called me a liar for correctly reporting what she said!
He was wrong, and we were right, according to the Guardian and BBC and every other media organ that reported it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 11:45 AM

So let's see. "Relocating Israel..." means the same as "transporting Jews out" now, does it?

Mad as a box o' frogs...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 12:24 PM

"The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "
Which originated from Jewish writer, Norman Finkelstein - it was not her suggestion and the maps proveded were Finkelstein's not hers

"JEWISH AUTHOR WHOSE ISRAEL 'RELOCATION' MAP WAS SHARED BY NAZ SHAH CONDEMNS 'OBSCENE' LABOUR ANTISEMITISM ROW
Norman G Finkelstein accused politicians of making 'sick' Holocaust comparisons for political gain
During the Labour leadership contest Jeremy Corbyn said he was open-minded about voting reform and suggested the system used in Scotland might be extended to Westminster Reuters
The American political scientist who posted the diagram that triggered an antisemitism row in the Labour Party has dismissed the furore as "obscene".
Norman G Finkelstein, a Jewish author whose parents survived concentration camps during the Holocaust, said he published the map shared by Naz Shah on his blog in 2014.
Entitled "Solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict – relocate Israel to into United States", it went up on his website on 4 August, the day before the future Bradford West MP shared it on her Facebook page.
Ms Shah has been suspended from Labour and quit two of her posts, while comments made by Ken Livingstone in her defence sparked a new row culminating in an independent review into antisemitism in the party.
Mr Finkelstein said he posted the map because he found it funny, claiming that such "jokes are commonplace in the US".
In an interview published by Open Democracy, he called comparisons to policies introduced by Holocaust organiser Adolf Eichmann "sick", saying the Facebook post could not be likened to his parents' experience of Nazi transportation.
"What are they doing? Don't they have any respect for the dead?" he said.
"All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging the Nazi holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and position. Have they no shame?"
Mr Finkelstein, whose work including a book called The Holocaust Industry has met with controversy, also said Mr Livingstone was "more or less accurate" with his subsequent claims about Adolf Hitler.
"Let's remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel," said the former Mayor of London, who was also suspended from the Labour Party.
"He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."
Analysts have said that although Hitler's government explored various "transfer agreements" before the Final Solution, it did not amount to supporting Zionism because the Nazis opposed the self-determination at the heart of the movement.
Mr Finkelstein called comparisons between the Israeli government and Nazis "gratuitous and a distraction" but said politicians should not be "crucified" over the issue.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the divisive author, who was banned from entering Israel for 10 years in 2008, does not represent "mainstream" views in the UK.
"He might think the map was funny but most Jews in this country think the very opposite," the group's communications officer, Simon Round, told The Independent.
"It might have been treated as some kind of joke but there are sensitivities there and the context is vital…it's not something that sits well."
Mr Finkelstein was also sceptical of Labour's antisemitism inquiry, arguing that finding a working definition of the term will be "impossible".
The UK-based Campaign Against Antisemitism told The Independent that being "anti-Zionist" is antisemetic.
"Zionism is the Jewish people's right to self-determination in Israel," a spokesperson said. "All people have the right to self-determination, so denying that right just to Jews is antisemitic."
The group said it was not antisemitic to oppose Israeli policies but cited "examples of hatred directed at Jewish people…disguised as political discourse".
But the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said there was a clear difference between antisemisim and anti-Zionism, calling the latter a "political ideology" that could be legitimately contested.
"While some seek to define Zionism as the right of Jewish people to self-determination, the Zionism of the Israeli state has resulted in the denial of basic human rights to Palestinians," a spokesperson said.
"To confuse – whether deliberately or otherwise – legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism only serves to undermine the struggle against racism."
Ms Shah stood down from her post on the Home Affairs Select Committee as the row continued on Tuesday.
The committee is conducting the inquiry into antisemitism, which could see David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn among the prominent politicians giving evidence."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-naz-shah-israel-map-norman-finkelstein-obscene-a7012461.html

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 12:42 PM

Steve,
So let's see. "Relocating Israel..." means the same as "transporting Jews out" now, does it?
Mad as a box o' frogs...

Who is?
That is what she said.
She did not mean the actual terrain!
She did not mean the Palestinian residents.
That only leaves the Jews!
That is why she admitted it was anti-Semitic.

"Labour MP Naz Shah has said the comments which saw her suspended from the party were anti-Semitic.
Ms Shah apologised in April for online posts, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States."

"relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

"Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."

So not mad at all Steve.
She said exactly what I said she did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 01:14 PM

I think all accusations of Labour antisemitism have been made null and void by Israel's own support of Hungarian antisemitic propaganda
Jim Carroll

The Times Tuesday, July 11th
ISRAEL BACKS HUNGARY'S 'ANTISEMITIC' POSTER AGAINST SOROS AFTER U-TURN
ISRAEL
Gregg Carlstrom Tel Aviv

Binyamin Netanyahu has overruled his ambassador and backed the right-wing Hungarian government's campaign against the Jewish billionaire George Soros.
Official posters denouncing Mr Soros have been described by Hungary's main Jewish organisation as antisemitic. Yossi Amrani, Israel's ambassador in Budapest, urged Viktor Orban, the prime minister, to remove them.
"Beyond political criticism of a certain person, the campaign not only evokes sad memories but al¬so sows hatred and fear," Mr Amrani said in a statement.
His bosses in Israel initially en¬dorsed the call, but later issued a clarification, saying that the Hungarian-born financier threatened democracy by funding charities critical of Mr Netanyahu.
Mr Orban's government has repeatedly attacked Mr Soros and is trying to close down a liberal university that he set up and funded. It has accused him of trying to flood Europe with immigrants.
It has paid for billboards across the country denouncing Mr Soros as a threat to national security. "Let's not allow Soros to have the last laugh," reads one, next to a photo of the smiling banker. The head of Hungary's Jewish community said that the billboards were antisemitic, while Human
Rights Watch compared them to Nazi propaganda, which often featured "the laughing Jew".
Mr Orban wrote a letter to Jewish leaders last week saying: "My duty is to defend our homeland and citizens."
Israel is normally quick to condemn antisemitism, but this time the government distanced itself from the ambassador's comments. "In no way was the statement meant to delegitimise criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel's democratically elected govern¬ments by funding organisations that defame the Jewish state," Emmanuel Nachson, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said.
Mr Netanyahu has not appointed a foreign minister and holds the post himself. He is scheduled to meet Mr Orban in Hungary next week.
Israel and Hungary have both passed legislation that seeks to limit the influence of liberal charities such as those Mr Soros funds.
Last month Mr Orban praised Miklos Horthy, a Second World War-era Hungarian leader, as an "exceptional statesman". Admiral Horthy was a Nazi ally who passed a series of anti-Jewish laws.
Again, Mr Amrani protested, this time on Hungarian television, and several leading Israeli politicians urged Mr Netanyahu to cancel his visit. But the foreign ministry said it was satisfied with Hungary's clarification—that Mr Orban was only praising the "positive periods" in his predecessor's history, not the "negative periods".
Israel used to follow local Jewish communities in deciding whether to meet parties with dubious pasts. It kept its distance from the National Front in France because Jewish leaders shunned the group.
But Mr Netanyahu and his government have sought to build ties with far-right factions across Europe, viewing them as useful diplomatic allies.
Last year, the head of Austria's Freedom Party spent a week in Israel on an official visit. The Israeli foreign ministry officially boycotts the party, which was founded in 1956 by former Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 01:56 PM

Point one. She did not say what you say she said. She referred to the relocation of Israel, not the transportation of Jews, as you said she did. You lied. You said what you wanted her to have said, just as you did with Wheatcroft with your vulgar and fraudulent. It's what you do.

Point two. The map in question was a map of the US with a lump in the middle of it the same size and shape as Israel. Funny that. That isn't a map of transported Jews. That is a map of a relocated Israel. It is a map of an impossible, whimsical situation. It is a joke. Personally I think it's a very unfunny joke in execrable bad taste. It was a map visualised by a Jewish man who was directly affected by the Holocaust, and he said it was a joke. It was a wrong joke to make in my view. But a joke it was. As the map depicted a ridiculously impossible situation, it was a joke map. The suggestion was not a serious suggestion as to what should happen. Naz Shah was foolish to reproduce it, though we could remember that she was a Muslim watching the vicious attacks on Gaza at the time she reproduced it. Not an excuse, a context.

Get real, Keith. It's over. You have a sick obsession with "Labour antisemitism," a distinctly rare beast, while you ignore the injustices meted out by your own side, including the Israeli regime and the Tories. You defended Johnson calling black children piccaninnies. Yiu sided with the xenophobic Farage in the referendum campaign. Yiu defend the vicious IDF attacks on Lebanon and Gaza. You deny the refugee camp massacres.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM

Oops, that went before I'd finished checking it. Points made, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 02:48 PM

Oh, and by the way, Keith, the joke map had the occupied West Bank in it. So much for "transporting Jews," eh? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 04:31 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 11:35 AM

"Rag,"Hmm I don't think I have EVER posted on here about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve.Hmm I don't think that anyone EVER suggested you did!"

Previously you posted "Steve claimed that to be a lie, and you all backed him"

I repeat I have never backed Steve on anything relevant to Naz Shah.

I will copy and paste another post by yourself:

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 05:49 AM

"Rag, so no-one claimed anything "about Naz Shah specifically backing Steve."That was just nonsense, as I said.I did suggest that you and Dave backed Steve.

IF YOU SAY YOU DO NOT I WILL APOLOGISE"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 04:56 PM

No comment Keith
So much for your concern for the Jewish People
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 17 - 04:58 PM

Its always nice to have backing, but on this occasion I can stand alone if I have to. All anyone has to do is to revisit Shah's Facebook post. It's there for all to see. This is what Keith said::

"Her statements were anti-Semitic in context, advocating the transportation of the Jews out of Israel."

She made no such statement. The above is Keith's interpretation of what he wanted her to have said. In other words, he lied. Go on, have a look. It's simple. She didn't say what Keith said she said. I'm not defending her. She was an idiot. An embarrassment. But all that has passed. She apologised and she has just doubled her majority. Perhaps Keith should leave leafy Hertford for a day or two and go up to ask the people of Bradford what they think. He might learn a few swear words. But we can't have a sensible discussion with Keith, ever, because he is pathologically determined to misrepresent what people say in order to fit his prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 03:09 AM

...and my point in raising it, which I am glad I did regardless of how often Keith says he bets I am not (twice up to now) was to compare the Naz Shah incident to Anne Marie Morris. The former made a stupid comment and was suspended. The latter made a stupid comment and was suspended. Neither had racist intentions but while that is no excuse, Keith is happy to accept that excuse from Morris. The biggest difference is that she is a Tory MP while Shah is Labour. MPs should be more careful. Mind you, Shah was not an MP or even in the public eye when she made her stupid remarks but they do fit in quite well with the agenda of trying to discredit the Labour party.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 07:51 AM

Steve, I do not lie.
She referred to the relocation of Israel, not the transportation of Jews, as you said she did. You lied.

Not true. She advocated the removal of the population but not the Arabs.
That would complete the cleansing of Jews from the whole middle East.
(Including West Bank, hence its inclusion)
That is what you are defending.

Steve,
This is what Keith said::
"Her statements were anti-Semitic in context, advocating the transportation of the Jews out of Israel."
She made no such statement.

YES SHE DID!!
Guardian, "Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."

Dave, you raised a false comparison.
Morris made an entirely innocuous statement but used an offensive word.
Shah used no offensive words but made anti-Semitic statements.

Rag,
Previously you posted "Steve claimed that to be a lie, and you all backed him"

If you state that you do not back Steve, I will gladly apologise to you.

Jim, we know she did not draw the maps, but what she said on the subject was racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 07:56 AM

Keith is happy to accept that excuse from Morris.
The biggest difference is that she is a Tory MP while Shah is Labour

Not true Dave! I said Tory Morris should be sacked. Go look before posting such shit!
I was happy to accept the apology and retraction from (Labour)Shah.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 08:03 AM

"I was happy to accept the apology and retraction from (Labour)Shah."

If that is the case why do you keep rabbiting on about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 08:12 AM

"Not true. She advocated the removal of the population but not the Arabs."

Nope. She didn't say that either. We can read verbatim what she said. We really don't need your hyper-interpretations.

"That is what you are defending."

When have I said I'm defending her? I've called her stupid and said that there is no excuse.

Come along, Keith, let's see what other fantasies you can manufacture. Though I doubt whether anyone else in the country is bothered about Naz Shah and the map any more. Dead in the water. Belly up, it is, that one. She did well in June didn't she? Do you reckon that means that Bradford West is full of antisemites? You're the last man standing fighting this one, aren't you? Meanwhile you have a few awkward questions about racism emanating from your own side. Let's start with the use of "nigger" and "piccaninny," shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 10:27 AM

Rag,
If that is the case why do you keep rabbiting on about it.

I did not bring it up Rag.
I have no problem with her, only with people who deny the anti-Semitism she freely admits to and accepted by all Parties including Labour, and reported on by reputable outlets like the Guardian and BBC.

Steve,
They are not my "hyper-interpretations."

Guardian,
"Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America.
"BBC,
"The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

So she did not want the Arabs "transported," just the Jews.
Blatant anti-Semitic racism.
That is what you are defending.

When have I said I'm defending her?

I did not say that. I said you defended her views, saying they were not anti-Semitic.
They were, and it is not just us telling you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 10:33 AM

She did well in June didn't she? Do you reckon that means that Bradford West is full of antisemites?

Her anti-Semitism was born of ignorance. She knows better now.
She no-longer makes anti-Semitic statements.
As I have said, I admire what she has done. I am glad that she did well.

She was subject to some anti-Semitic abuse herself sadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 11:17 AM

"Jim, we know she did not draw the maps, but what she said on the subject was racist."
NO IT WAS NOT KEITH - SHE REPATED A JOKE BY A RESPRCTED JEW AND HE POINTED OUT THAT FACT
Are you so antisemitic as to dismiss what he said - of course you are
You have been asked to condemn Israel's open support of antisemitic propaganda and still you refuse
Your agenda here is obvious, **** the Jews - lets give the Labour Party a kicking and ignore Israeli antisemitism in support of a fascist politician
You couldn't have made yourself more plain - at least your mask's off now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 11:32 AM

Find another bone to gnaw, Keith. This is becoming positively comedic.

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

Nah
Let him go on
He's proved conclusively that he has no interest whatever in Antisemitism - just a handy stick to beat the Labour Party
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 12:12 PM

It is "comedic" how you people deny the truth put in front of you.

Guardian,
"Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America.
"BBC,
"The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

Read it.
She wanted the Jewish population "transported" out of the Middle East.
Where is the comedy Steve?
Where is the "joke" Jim.

Blatant racism against Jews and you pretend it is OK.
To you it clearly is OK.
You show yourselves for what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 12:22 PM

Give over, Keith. Why on earth would anyone need your version of the "truth" when we can go back to the actual map and see the whole text (that wasn't her doing in any case, as you've been told several times: perhaps you think that Norman Finkelstein is just one o' them thar self-hating Jews, eh, Keith?). You're right, Jim. Let him carry on. Not quite as much fun as the mixed doubles though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 01:04 PM

" Israel's population to be "transported" "#She didn't write it - she quoted Finklestein - the press used his maps
You are neither interested in the truth and you are using the Jewish People as a club to beat the Labour Party
I would say this is as antisemitic as you could possibly get
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 01:43 PM

Dave, you raised a false comparison.

Bollocks. That is your opinion. Mine, and that of many others, is that they both made prats of themselves. Is that true or not? You just seem to be following their lead.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 03:43 PM

Steve,
Why on earth would anyone need your version of the "truth"

Not my version.
I just quoted BBC and Guardian. I can quote more.
I can quote, but you can't because your version has no basis in actual fact.

Or, will you produce something that actually supports you?
Ha ha ha ha!

Jim,
Israel's population to be "transported" "#She didn't write it

She did. The Guardian quoted her. I gave you the quote and link.

Dave,
Mine, and that of many others, is that they both made prats of themselves. Is that true or not?

Fact, Morris used an offensive word in an otherwise uncontroversial statement. She did make a prat of herself.
Fact, Shah made anti-Semitic statements. That is worse than just making a prat of herself, in my opinion.
She would agree I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 04:07 PM

They both made prats of themselves. That is a fact. How do you measure how much of prat each one was? Hertford pratometer? Takes one to know one I suppose.

At least you said it was only your opinion, which is good, but then blew it by suggesting that you think Naz Shah would agree with you.

In your dreams.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 04:10 PM

Oh, and Shah made a prat of herself before she became an MP and was not exactly in the position of responsibility that Morris was.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 05:24 PM

"Not my version.
I just quoted BBC and Guardian. I can quote more.
I can quote, but you can't because your version has no basis in actual fact."

Why quote anybody else? Why not go back to the only thing that matters, the Finkelstein map, complete with text? Who cares what you think, Keith? We have the original! We had the Wheatcroft original! You can't stand originals can you, Keith? Originals never quite align with your agenda, do they, Keith? Always has to be Keith's "superior" take on the original! You're weird, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 17 - 07:40 PM

Whike you continue to support Israeli antisemitism as you are Keith you have no case
Why should we believe an antisemite like you
A reminder, in case you missed it the first half dozen times

The Times Tuesday, July 11th
ISRAEL BACKS HUNGARY'S 'ANTISEMITIC' POSTER AGAINST SOROS AFTER U-TURN
ISRAEL
Gregg Carlstrom Tel Aviv

Binyamin Netanyahu has overruled his ambassador and backed the right-wing Hungarian government's campaign against the Jewish billionaire George Soros.
Official posters denouncing Mr Soros have been described by Hungary's main Jewish organisation as antisemitic. Yossi Amrani, Israel's ambassador in Budapest, urged Viktor Orban, the prime minister, to remove them.
"Beyond political criticism of a certain person, the campaign not only evokes sad memories but al¬so sows hatred and fear," Mr Amrani said in a statement.
His bosses in Israel initially en¬dorsed the call, but later issued a clarification, saying that the Hungarian-born financier threatened democracy by funding charities critical of Mr Netanyahu.
Mr Orban's government has repeatedly attacked Mr Soros and is trying to close down a liberal university that he set up and funded. It has accused him of trying to flood Europe with immigrants.
It has paid for billboards across the country denouncing Mr Soros as a threat to national security. "Let's not allow Soros to have the last laugh," reads one, next to a photo of the smiling banker. The head of Hungary's Jewish community said that the billboards were antisemitic, while Human
Rights Watch compared them to Nazi propaganda, which often featured "the laughing Jew".
Mr Orban wrote a letter to Jewish leaders last week saying: "My duty is to defend our homeland and citizens."
Israel is normally quick to condemn antisemitism, but this time the government distanced itself from the ambassador's comments. "In no way was the statement meant to delegitimise criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel's democratically elected govern¬ments by funding organisations that defame the Jewish state," Emmanuel Nachson, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said.
Mr Netanyahu has not appointed a foreign minister and holds the post himself. He is scheduled to meet Mr Orban in Hungary next week.
Israel and Hungary have both passed legislation that seeks to limit the influence of liberal charities such as those Mr Soros funds.
Last month Mr Orban praised Miklos Horthy, a Second World War-era Hungarian leader, as an "exceptional statesman". Admiral Horthy was a Nazi ally who passed a series of anti-Jewish laws.
Again, Mr Amrani protested, this time on Hungarian television, and several leading Israeli politicians urged Mr Netanyahu to cancel his visit. But the foreign ministry said it was satisfied with Hungary's clarification—that Mr Orban was only praising the "positive periods" in his predecessor's history, not the "negative periods".
Israel used to follow local Jewish communities in deciding whether to meet parties with dubious pasts. It kept its distance from the National Front in France because Jewish leaders shunned the group.
But Mr Netanyahu and his government have sought to build ties with far-right factions across Europe, viewing them as useful diplomatic allies.
Last year, the head of Austria's Freedom Party spent a week in Israel on an official visit. The Israeli foreign ministry officially boycotts the party, which was founded in 1956 by former Nazis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

Whike you continue to support Israeli antisemitism as you are Keith you have no case

If I have ever supported any kind of racism, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Why should we believe an antisemite like you

I do not ask you to believe me, just all those liars (!) at the BBC and the Guardian, The Labour Party and every other party, and Shah herself.

It is laughable that you claim to be right and all of them wrong or lying.
Sadly that is your whole case, so you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:46 AM

Dave,
blew it by suggesting that you think Naz Shah would agree with you.
In your dreams.

Just my opinion, but based on what she has now said about her statements.
She full confesses that they were blatantly anti-Semitic, which is indeed much worse than just making a prat of yourself.

Perhaps you do not regard anti-Semitism as being that serious, but she does.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:58 AM

Yes Keith, just your opinion. Again. Worth very little in most places and even less on here. In my opinion :-)

Nice to see you using the same type of weasel words that the Daily Heil use. Perhaps you do etc etc I would stop using that type of insidious smear if I was you. I can play that game as well. Perhaps it is true that the vicar throws cream cakes at you...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:35 AM

Did she really say BLATANTLY antisemitic? Or is this yet another example of your hyper-interpretational skills? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:48 AM

I think we have had enough of this anti BDS crap Keith
The attacks on Labour were first started by Friends of Israel in response to the threat of a boycott for their illegal and inhuman behaviour
Your "massive problem" within the Labour Party has now dwindled to one member quoting a respected Jewish intellectual
Enough really is enough - the Israeli influence on this forum has reached the point where it could very well destroy it
A couple of Pro-Israeli trolls have just brought about the collapse of yet another thread by with their hate posts of "Jew Hater" - sadly it involved someone I once very much respected who also accused me of hating Jews and demanded I paid a donatation to an organisation which has been entered in Wiki as:
"a Jewish far-right religious-political organization in the United States, whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism by whatever means necessary".[1] While the group asserts that it "unequivocally condemns terrorism" and states that it has a "strict no-tolerance policy against terrorism and other felonious acts",[2] it was classified as "a right wing extremist group" by the FBI in 2001 and is considered a radical organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[3][4] According to the FBI, the JDL has been involved in plotting and executing acts of terrorism within the United States.[3][5]"
This argument should have been over long ago when these accusations were proven to be directly linked to the Israeli anti-BDS campaign - it has no foundation and even if it was shown that Shah was not just repeating a joke, she does not represent the Labour Party, nor does she pose a threat in any way shape or form.
You have no interest in antisemitism - you never have had.
You are now endorsing antisemitism yourself by refusing to comment on Israel's support for Hungarian Antisemitism which has direct historical links to the Nazis.
It's time that all right-wing Israeli influence was exorcised from these discussions - that is what you are engaging in by flogging this long-dead dead horse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:16 AM

Closed or deleted threads are not really anything I bother about much, but I note that Joe Offer took the opportunity to have an extended last word in the Civil War thread that was extremely critical of Jim and which made bitter accusations that are safely beyond the reach of responses. Not my gig this, but that seems entirely wrong to me. I think his post should be deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:52 AM

Dave,
Yes Keith, just your opinion. Again. Worth very little in most places and even less on here. In my opinion

I back my opinion with hard evidence and quoting Shah herself.
Yours appear to be just baseless whims.

Nice to see you using the same type of weasel words that the Daily Heil use.

I do not, and I never quote the Mail either.

Steve,
Did she really say BLATANTLY antisemitic? Or is this yet another example of your hyper-interpretational skills?

She said "clearly anti-Semitic" which means the same.
No "hyper-interpretational skills" needed by me.
She said,
"The language I used was anti-Semitic, it was offensive," she said. "What I did was I hurt people and the language that was the clear anti-Semitic language, which I didn't know at the time, was when I said, 'The Jews are rallying.'"

Jim,
Sorry I am still just discussing the Shah issue, but you are free to post any random shit you want.
I will shoot it all down again when I am finished here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:59 AM

Steve,
Joe Offer took the opportunity to have an extended last word in the Civil War

I think you must mean the "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES Urge MP support" thread, where Joe said,
"Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all:"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:05 AM

I back my opinion with hard evidence and quoting Shah herself.

So, you have hard evidence that Naz Shah agrees with you? On What?

Yours appear to be just baseless whims.

Is it a baseless whim that Shah was not an MP when she made her stupid remarks while Morris was? Is it a baseless whim that both made prats of themselves? Your opinion, as ever, is based on rigid preconceptions and you hate having that pointed out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:05 AM

"Did she really say BLATANTLY antisemitic? Or is this yet another example of your hyper-interpretational skills? She said "clearly anti-Semitic" which means the same"

Definitions:
1.blatantly
ˈbleɪt(ə)ntli/Submit
adverb
in an open and unashamed manner.

2.clearly
ˈklɪəli/Submit
adverb
in a clear manner; with clarity.

Quite different meanings there professor, you are attempting to re-write the dictionary ........... again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:15 AM

You are misrepresenting Joe Offer's (rather unfortunate) recent contributions, in which his opinions were inconsistently-expressed and somewhat uninformed to say the least. You opportunistically picked that out to smear Jim. Tell us what YOU think, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:42 AM

Dave,
So, you have hard evidence that Naz Shah agrees with you? On What?

On what I said she did Dave.
"That (anti-Semitism)is worse than just making a prat of herself,"

She has made statements subsequently that show how seriously she views her errors. More than just making a prat of herself.

Steve, I took no part in that discussion, and will pass no comment on it now it is closed.
I just cleared up which thread you were talking about. You described it as the Civil War thread, neither of which words appeared in the title.

Rag, both of those definitions describe her anti-Semitic statements very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:48 AM

I would venture to guess that Joe intended the recipient of Carroll's generous offer of redemption to be the Anti Defamation League and not the Jewish Defense League but I will let Joe speak to that.

As for BDS, it is considered to be anti-Semitic and condemned by many countries for being a campaign to delegitimize Israel and spread hate and anti-Semitism around the world. In France, for instance, advocating for BDS is illegal and considered a hate crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:55 AM

But she did not use the word "blatantly" though did she.

YOU have interjected that word which has a totally different meaning to the word "clearly" which was used.

I have put both dictionary definitions on this thread just for you.

If you cannot understand the difference find an adult who will explain it to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 08:56 AM

But you did pass comment, didn't you, Keith, which is why I mentioned it, you clown!

"As for BDS, it is considered to be anti-Semitic and condemned by many countries for being a campaign to delegitimize Israel and spread hate and anti-Semitism around the world."

Considered by you. Give me a list of the countries that have condemned it. In each case, give me their official reason for condemning it. In other words, I think you've made up everything in that sentence. It's just throwaway stuff, isn't it? So I'm challenging you to verify it. No rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:05 AM

In other words no evidence but your interpretation of her words. Nothing whatsoever to conclude that she believes anything that you say. No evidence to back up you ridiculous claim that I do not consider antisemitism to be serious either.

Quelle Surprise.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:12 AM

accusations that are safely beyond the reach of responses.

Yeah, seems like Joe in addition to honing his trolling skills is a coward and a schoolyard bully.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:43 AM

""Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all:""
Can some moderator please prevent yet another thread from being used for yet another series of hate posts from those who have no rational arguments any more
To use a despicably cowardly posting from someone who should know better who has been given the right of reply after a thread has been closed down to the rest of us is beyond belief
If we wish to deal with antisemitism fully here, deal with the fact that Israel is now colluding with a fascist group in Hungary to prevent antisemitic posters from being banned - that's what I call antisemitism on an international scale - a pale shadow of any imagined and unproven antsemitism in the Labour Party
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:20 AM

Rag,
But she did not use the word "blatantly" though did she.

She could have because in the context the words are interchangeable.
I am not getting involved in etymological pedantry with you, and that is my last word on it.

But you did pass comment, didn't you, Keith, which is why I mentioned it, you clown!

I made no comment at all, you clown!

Dave,
In other words no evidence but your interpretation of her words.

Her words need no interpreting. She could not be clearer about what she now thinks of her anti-Semitic outbursts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:28 AM

Steve,
Give me a list of the countries that have condemned it.

Wiki,
Canada
Legislative Assembly of Ontario
In 2016, in a bipartisan vote, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed a resolution that "calls on the legislature to stand against any movement that promotes hate, prejudice and racism" and "reject the 'differential treatment' of Israel by the BDS movement".[56]

France
In France, the 2003 Lellouche law outlaws discrimination based on a variety of immutable characteristics, including national origin."[57][58] That law and hate speech laws have been applied to BDS activities.[59]

United States
In April 2015, Tennessee became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS.[60] As of June 2017, a total of 21 states have passed anti-BDS legislation.[61]

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM

Nice try, Professor, but YOU LOSE.

Now, go back and read Steve's posting - for comprehension this time - & then try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:32 AM

As many as three – out of how many?
America ha kept Israel from facing war crimes charges with its UN veto and waged war on Vietnamese peasants for fourteen years by pouring burning petrol on them
FRANCE

CANADA

CANADA AGAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:36 AM

I did Greg. Perhaps you need to.
He also said, "I think you've made up everything in that sentence."
I showed him to be wrong about that.
Thanks for bringing it up Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:48 AM

CANADIAN JEWS, NOT THAT THEIR OPINIONS COUNT!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:49 AM

"we took three local councils – Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd – to court for passing BDS motions, and it was on the back of those legal actions that the (UK) Government has decided to move to ban such boycotts"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/12162084/Jews-know-that-a-boycott-is-just-the-beginning.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:00 PM

No, no Professor - the two sentances before that.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

Why can't you just say what you mean Greg?
I have replied correctly to Steve's post.
If you disagree explain yourself, otherwise forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:16 PM

Her words need no interpreting. She could not be clearer about what she now thinks of her anti-Semitic outbursts.

In other words you believe that the words she used

1. Say that she believes being antisemitic is not being a prat
2. That she agrees with whatever it is you are rambling on about and
3. That I do not take antisemitism seriously.

There is something seriously different in our understanding of the English language. Dare I say it... :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM

I HAVE explained myself, Professor, viz: You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 02:05 PM

Dave,
1. Say that she believes being antisemitic is not being a prat

No. that she believes it worse than just being a prat, as I clearly stated.

2. That she agrees with whatever it is you are rambling on about

No. Just on what I clearly stated.

3. That I do not take antisemitism seriously.

You appear not to, equating it with just being a prat.

Greg, I have no idea what you are talking about.
If anyone else does, please explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 02:55 PM

PYRRIC VICTORY

PUBLIC SECTOR ONLY

PUBLIC RAGE FORCES RETREAT

UNDEMOCRATIC SAYS BRITISH JEWS

ILLEGAL

BAN DENIES THE RIGHTS WE ARE DEFENDING

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM

That's the whole problem, Prof. - you have no idea what ANYONE is talking about. Including yourself.

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

You have no clue whatsoever what Naz Shah believes, what I believe nor, I suspect, what you believe yourself. Your arguments are just circular and vacuous. You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths. When asked to provide evidence you change the subject. When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying. Everyone knows what you are like but still we try to reason with you. I think it must be me that is mad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:36 PM

Well, Keith, you said:

"Steve, I took no part in that discussion, and will pass no comment on it now it is closed.
I just cleared up which thread you were talking about."

But you didn't just "clear up which thread." You did pass comment on it, in a most opportunistic and despicable way. You said, commenting on the thread:

"I think you must mean the "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES Urge MP support" thread, where Joe said,
'Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all.'"

That IS a comment on the thread. Your motive for digging out that blatant out-of-context remark was very clear. You wanted to smear Jim. You are truly a horrible man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:39 PM

No Steve, he's a truly horrible child.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:17 AM

What a shower of bullies!

Keith keeps calm and makes his point, you simply offer abuse in return.
Jim continues to show what sort of person he is, liking to dish it out, but completely unable to accept it when proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:59 AM

"What a shower of bullies!"
You have become just a mindless troll with nothing to say here Ake - you ever hav had the courage to back up your tyrollism with decent argument - your post is lttle more than hate-mail now
Keith chooses to drag this long-dead thread on and on and on for his own gratification - nobody forces him to do so, but at least he responds to what people have to say - in his own distinctive manner
To expect others to allow him to smear the party and the politics and the Party without reply is bullying censorship in the extreme
I sugest you add to the discussion or butt out and mind your own business - if you have nothing to contribute it is nothing to do with you - simple as that
If I have been "proved wrong" show me where I have - but you don't do that sort of thing, do you
You prefer to hide behind others and throw stones from a safe distance - that's what trolls do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:37 AM

Incidentally Ake
Has it not occurred to you how partonising your behaviour towards Keith is?
He doesn't need a minder constantly leaping in to defend him from all those "bullies"- people who choose to participate in these debates do so because they feel themselves capable of doing so without having a nurse on hand to wipe their bum and blow their nose.
He is mentally competent enough to stop when he has had enough
You know that because you never allow yourself to get involved in a discussion long enough to even respond to what others have to say - one of your easily recognisable traits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:41 AM

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

Or maybe he does it by proxy?

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:17 AM

What a shower of bullies!

Keith keeps calm and makes his point, you simply offer abuse in return.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:56 AM

Dave,
You have no clue whatsoever what Naz Shah believes,

Yes I do. I read what she writes. That is a big clue to what she believes.

You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths

Not true. Produce an example if you can.

When asked to provide evidence you change the subject.

That has never happened, and again you will never produce an example.
Having to make up shit about me shows that your case has failed.

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Steve,
That IS a comment on the thread

No. I just gave the name of the thread I assumed you meant, with a quote from Joe's post that I assumed you referred to.
I made no comment of my own at all.

Jim, I do not find Ake to be in the least patronising.

Steve, Jim and Greg, I do agree with Joe that you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

Too bad. I wouldn't hang around a place full of bullies if I were you, Keith. Just a helpful suggestion. That's the thing about internet forums. It's not like being sent to school where you live in daily dread of the bullies you're forced to mix with. You have a choice.

"You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths."

"Not true. Produce an example if you can."

That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, Keith! 😂😂😂

(Explanation of the joke will be provided on application...)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:30 AM

And when you quote from a post in a thread, you are, by implication provided by the fact that you selected the quote to make a point (in this case smearing Jim), passing comment. Let's get rid of that particular piece of Keithly bullshit, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:48 AM

That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, Keith!

Just another of your empty assertions that you can not substantiate with any actual facts.

It is amusing how you people all switch to personal attack when your arguments all fail.
You might as well post, "We lose."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:53 AM

Not true. Produce an example if you can.

How about

You appear not to, equating it with just being a prat.

I have never equated antisemitism with 'just being a prat'. I have said that anyone using any racist phrases, particularly those in the public eye, are prats. Equating it to just being a prat is your interpretation, not my words.

If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

How about 6 lines down in your same post

Steve, Jim and Greg, I do agree with Joe that you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Do you really think that people don't notice these things Keith or do you not care?

Different mora...

Oh, you know the drill.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 05:44 AM

"QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!"
This has become nonsensical Keith
- nobody tells lies and you are dishonest in the way you respond to given facts
You are now entering into the reallms of trollism by making statements you refuse to debate on any issues that don't back up your cursade on a subject that is long dead elsaewhere
Nobody else is discussing Labour antisemitism and you refuse to discuss Israeli antisemitism that has been confirmed by your fellow Israeli supporters on a now closed thread
None of them has describe d it as "a pack of lies" - you even out-troll them
You are truely on your own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

You resented the time I suggested you were stonewalling - here you are doing it as a permanent ploy to avoid facts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:21 AM

Incidently, as Shah said in her apology "I wan't antisemitic - what I put up was antisemitic"
The originator of the suggestion, Norman Finklestein" has since leapt to her defence by pointing out that it was a joke circulating throughout America when he first put it up.
It has nothing whatever to do with The Labour Party and the fact that it is the remaining case of "massive Labour antisemitism" and the fact of your clinging onto it like a life-raft makes your argument (or lack of one) a joke in itself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM

It was not an assertion - it was a joke, which I'll now make serious, based on the fact that you lied about Wheatcroft's use of the word "fraudulent," misapplying it to someone he never said it about, and that you lied about Naz Shah, assigning the word "blatantly" to her statement though she never used it. On top of that, you assigned a remark to Shah that she never made, about advocating the transportation of Jews out of Israel, and you blatantly ignore the fact that the map was intended as a joke which was not her own work at all but that of a Jew who was affected by the Holocaust, Norman Finkelstein, who stated that it was a joke. You make things up, Keith, and you never back down. That's why you are a laughing stock here whose word can never be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:49 AM

I have never equated antisemitism with 'just being a prat'.

Yes you have Dave. Think back.

How about 6 lines down in your same post

Not what I was accused of. I just said I agreed with Joe about something.

Jim,
"QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!"
This has become nonsensical Keith

Yes, you never can, revealing yourselves to be liars.

Nobody else is discussing Labour anti-Semitism

Who was I discussing it with then??

and you refuse to discuss Israeli anti-Semitism

This thread is about UK politics, not Israel.
I will be happy to squash your silly claims again, but not on this thread.

Norman Finklestein" has since leapt to her defence by pointing out that it was a joke

She did not see it as a joke, and really advocated it.

It has nothing whatever to do with The Labour Party

Of course it has. She is a Labour MP and Labour suspended her over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:55 AM

Steve,
On top of that, you assigned a remark to Shah that she never made, about advocating the transportation of Jews out of Israel,

She did advocate that. I provided the quotes from the Guardian.
If you are saying I fabricated a quote, you are lying.
QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

blatantly ignore the fact that the map was intended as a joke

Because she took it seriously and advocated it for real.

You make things up, Keith,

QUOTE ME DOING IT THEN, LIAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:56 AM

Yes you have Dave. Think back.

I can't. Show me an example of where I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'.

Not what I was accused of. I just said I agreed with Joe about something.

I accused you of crying abuse and bullying. You agreed that Steve, Jim and Greg were "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Exactly what I accused you of. There are plenty of examples of you complaining about abuse as well. Want me to get some?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 08:45 AM

"Yes, you never can, revealing yourselves to be liars."
Nobody tells lies Keith - this ha become a stonewalling poly
You demand a quote
You are given one
You ignorre it and a few postings later demand a quote
And so ad infinitum
You debate her to "win something" - want a list of how many times you have claimed "you lose"
Nobody else does this - we are here yto debate issues - you are here to "win" something
That is not what debating is about
Your present technique is to make your claim and then to ignore all evidence to the contrary and continue to make it
Stonewalling, pure and simple
What you don't ignore you deny out of had - a perfect example is the antisemitc support Israel is giving to Hungarian extremists which you dismissed as "lies" while your fellow right wingers were prepared to debate it as fact
Stonewalling again
You have debated BDS and will now probably declare it out of bounds because you refuse to discuss Israeli antisemitism on a thread concerning non existent antisemitism instgated by anti an BDS capaign by Israel #
More stonewalling
You have been given a list of facts about the countries you say support a ban on BDS - you ignore them - more stonewalling
You have moved from "a massive problem of antisemitism" to clinging to one sing piece of driftwood - Naz Shah, in order toi discredit the Labout Party
Utterly insane - even the right wing press have walked away from that one.
"She did not see it as a joke, and really advocated it."
She put it up as a blog five years ago - you don't "advocate it" as a blog- you raise it as a serious proposal at a Party meeting
It was before she was an MP - the Labour Party is not responsible for the views of every single member and to suggest and to suggest they are is spiteful propaganda
Shah apologised for her remarks and the matter was dropped by everyone except you
"She is a Labour MP and Labour suspended her over it."
Half the story again
She was suspended whike the accusations were investigated - she was then reinstated
Why did you miss this bit out (rhetorical question)
You said she confessed to antisemitism when what she actually said was ""I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," - half the ****** story again
Labour has proved beyond any doubt that no serious proiblm exists - the British people in the last fiasco of an election has shown this to be a non-event, yet you continue to re-resurrect long dead threads to show the world is wrong and you have "won" something
We can safely assume you are not going to respond to Israel's open antisemitism, just as we can assume you are not going to respond to the actual facts of the banning of BDS in France Britain and Canada
That is what you do - you ignore thenm and let them lie and fester, than raise them again
That is neither honest or intelligent debating - it's trying to "win" something
Tteh fact is simple - no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise - there is not "massive problem" of antisemitism in the Labour Party - there never has been and there never will be
They are siompley not that sort of Party
W can safely leave that to the Tories and their track record of racism, Little Englandism and Bigotry
Ukip, who you one valiantly supported as a serious party, as you do is a dead dead duck
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 09:41 AM

Wheatcroft never said that AJP Taylor was fraudulent. You said he did say it.

Naz never said that her remarks were blatantly antisemitic. You said she did say it.

Naz never said that she advocated the transportation of the Jews out of Israel. You said she did advocate it.

You said you didn't comment on a closed thread. But you lifted a quote from that closed thread in order to make a point (a pretty nasty one - it was made in order to smear Jim), and the quote was out of context.

Lots more like these down the years. In every case you thought that just shifting the meaning would go unnoticed. You thought in each case that you'd get away with it. They all have one thing in common. You never retract. You never say oops, my mistake. No-one is bullying you. You want to get away with telling lies. Well we're not as stupid as you think. We can see you coming a mile off. Four instances there of you telling lies. I'm pretty sure that the others who post here have got their own examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:20 AM

Dave,
I can't. Show me an example of where I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'.

"They (Shah and Morris) both made prats of themselves. That is a fact."
I replied that Shah was worse than just a prat because she actually made ant-Semitic statements.

I accused you of crying abuse and bullying. You agreed that Steve, Jim and Greg were "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

I do agree that they are bullies, but I never cried abuse or bullying.
I think they should stop it, but it has no effect on me and I have never objected about it for myself.
When they (and you) resort to personal abuse I see it as an admission of defeat.

Jim,
Shah apologised for her remarks and the matter was dropped by everyone except you

I admire how she has dealt with it and apologised. I only argue with those who deny her comments were anti-Semitic.
They were.

She was suspended whike the accusations were investigated - she was then reinstated
Why did you miss this bit out (rhetorical question)

I did not. Why did you miss out that she apologised for her anti-Semitic comments and no longer believed them?

Steve,
Naz never said that her remarks were blatantly antisemitic. You said she did say it.

She said they "clearly" were. She also has said she is now ashamed of them, but she was not at the time. That fulfils Rag's definition of "blatantly" so it was an accurate description.

Naz never said that she advocated the transportation of the Jews out of Israel. You said she did advocate it.

She did. I quoted the Guardian and BBC saying she did.

You said you didn't comment on a closed thread. But you lifted a quote from that closed thread in order to make a point

I made no comment. You referred to Joe's post and I clarified what thread it was and an extract of what Joe said.
I made no comment of my own.

Wheatcroft never said that AJP Taylor was fraudulent. You said he did say it.

It is a lie that I quoted him as saying that. I did not use quotes.
I actually quoted him accurately, in full, and in quotes.
And that was years ago! How desperate you are to get something on me, but still you fail!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:36 AM

You can't dismiss your lies simply saying they didn't take place. Everything I've said is here in the threads in black and white. I don't care whether the stuff I have on you is four years or forty years old. You could have cleared it up in a heartbeat by saying oops. It would never have been mentioned again. You thought you were going to get away with a loose and inaccurate remark. The way you expressed it suited your agenda better than the original, just as "blatantly," with the pejorative undertones that "clearly" lacks, better suited your agenda apropos of Naz Shah. I picked you up. It's your personality defect that never changes, Keith, so my examples never date. The oops never happens. Make it happen, Keith. I'll never mention it again. Just stop trying to take us for fools. You set our antennae a-twitching whenever you post. That's entirely your fault. You'll be picked up on your dissembling behaviour every single time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

Latest offering, Steve.

According to Keith I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'. When asked to produce evidence, this is what he comes up with. These are my exact words.

"They both made prats of themselves. That is a fact."

There we have it once again. I never equated being antisemitic with 'just being a prat' yet Keith insists that is what I said and that is his evidence. Unbelievable? It would be in any other circumstance but this is Keith we are talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:46 AM

"I admire how she has dealt with it and apologised. I only argue with those who deny her comments were anti-Semitic.
They were."
Your perogative but it proves nothing other than you disagree - SFA tyo doi with the Labour Party
"Why did you miss out that she apologised for her anti-Semitic comments and no longer believed them?"
This has been my ongoing position since the very first time you raised tis on the now deleted thread - I never omit things deliberately and I didn't here
Why do you insist in continuing to flog this long dead horse ?
If you had the slightest concern for te Jewish people you would not continue to dodge Israeli support for antisemitic propaganda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

Steve
You can't dismiss your lies simply saying they didn't take place.

You can not make me a liar just by claiming it.
I do not lie.
That is why none of you can quote me doing it.
"Everything I've said is here in the threads in black and white."
Yes it is, so quote me, liar.

as "blatantly," with the pejorative undertones that "clearly" lacks,

I did not quote her as saying "blatantly" but her comments were blatantly anti-Semitic and she would not deny that.
She is ashamed of it now, but unashamed at the time. See Rag's definition.

It's your personality defect that never changes, Keith, so my examples never date.

Like all your gang's recent posts, personal about me and nothing about the issue we are supposed to be discussing.

If you could argue your case you would.
You can't so you go for me personally. An admission of defeat!

Dave,
I never equated being antisemitic with 'just being a prat'

You did Dave.
Shah spouted anti-Semitism and to you that just made her a prat.
To me it is worse.

Jim,
Your perogative but it proves nothing other than you disagree

Yes. But so does Shah herself, the Labour Party and every other Party.
Your case is that she and everyone else are lying or wrong, but you have it right!
Hardly convincing!

- SFA tyo doi with the Labour Party

Of course it is. She was a big part and an important example of the problem Labour has with anti-Semitism.

Why do you insist in continuing to flog this long dead horse ?

Because the dead horse is galloping all over you and trampling all your arguments into the dirt!

If you had the slightest concern for te Jewish people you would not continue to dodge Israeli support for antisemitic propaganda

I dispute that claim about Israel, but this thread is about UK politics not Israel.
You are obsessed!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 01:32 PM

Well I'm back in one of my favourite bars on the West coast of Ireland enjoying my first pint of decent Guinness in weeks.

I see that the professor didn't find an adult to explain the difference between "blatantly" and clearly.

Either that or he is clearly a blatant liar.

May drop in from time to time when I am not drinking and enjoying the music that abounds ............. and I can be arsed.

Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:19 PM

You did Dave.
Shah spouted anti-Semitism and to you that just made her a prat.

I simply did not equate antisemitism with being a prat. There is no law to say you cannot make antisemitic comments if you are a prat or vice versa. In fact, if you make any racist comments, particularly if you are in the public eye you are definitely a prat and quite possibly other things.

You have failed dismally to show in any way shape or form to show that I said anywhere that being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'. The word 'just' was inserted by you in the same way that 'blatantly' was inserted elsewhere.

If I so chose I could refer to you as a prat. That does not stop you from being the thick cunt that someone else called you. Not that I would stoop to either of course but the two are not mutually exclusive. Not difficult to understand is it?

Now you have been caught in yet another lie and you are trying your best to wriggle out of it. It doesn't work. Everyone can see what has happened and they all know you too well. Deny away as I am sure you will but we all know the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:13 PM

"You can not make me a liar just by claiming it.
I do not lie.
That is why none of you can quote me doing it.
...so quote me, liar."

You!ve had four examples of the way in which you "adjust" the truth to fit your agenda. Chapter and verse. Quoted. Clear as a bell. No, as BLATANT as a bell! You won't address what I've told you at all. Too bad. Just put your hands over your ears and shout la la la, Keith. It suits you. It's what you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:28 AM

Steve,
You!ve had four examples of the way in which you "adjust" the truth to fit your agenda.

No. Just your interpretation. No single quote of me lying, and there never will be.

Dave,
I simply did not equate antisemitism with being a prat.

That was the only criticism you made of Shaw, and compared her to Morris as just both prats.
I say that blatant racism is worse.

Rag,
Are you not an adult?
You provided this definition,


Definitions:
1.blatantly
ˈbleɪt(ə)ntli/Submit
adverb
in an open and unashamed manner.

Shah is ashamed of it now, but not at the time, so her anti-Semitism was "unashamed."

In this context "open" and "clear" are synonymous and she admitted to "openly anti-Semitic."

My usage was accurate and correct

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:57 AM

My usage was accurate and correct

Yes it was. But it was your usage, not hers. Just like it was your usage and not mine that said 'just'. I never made such a remark and so far you have failed miserably to link to one.

Give it up, Keith. You have been caught out yet again and still you will not admit putting words in peoples mouths. Everyone knows that you have this peculiar habit already so stop digging.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 06:18 AM

You really couldn't make this stuff up, could you.* I'm beginning to question my own sanity here! 😱🤡🤠🤓🤗👻🐸


*Well, Keith can...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:02 PM

Guess you lads just like playing with toddlers. Couldn't you just make or adopt some of your own? I've got an old pram I gould let you have.

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:17 PM

Thanks Greg but I have Grandkids to play with and to be honest they often make a lot more sense.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:24 PM

Only "often"? Not always?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM

Well, I don't think I have heard anyone on here shouting 'I want a poo!'

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:50 PM

Dave,
Yes it was. But it was your usage, not hers.

Yes, but I did not claim that she said the word.
It is entirely consistent with what she did say.
She was not ashamed at the time, and Rag's definition give "shameless" as equivalent to "blatant" and she actually did describe her words as "clearly anti-Semitic."
No deception. My description was entirely consistent with her expressed views.
This is just a pedantic vendetta by a gang of would be bullies to try to discredit me because you have no answer to my actual case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM

Dave,
Just like it was your usage and not mine that said 'just'. I never made such a remark and so far you have failed miserably to link to one.

Again, I never quoted you as saying "just."
That was my word for your position.
She spouted nasty racism, and you just called it being a prat,

Just pedantic nit picking because you have no reply to my actual case.
A nasty would be bully who will tolerate alternative views being expressed.

No wonder decent people will not express political views on this forum.
They know the will be hounded by a whole gang of bullies if they dare to antagonise any one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:00 PM

Greg too.
Nothing whatever to say on the issue under discussion, just nasty attempted put downs to warn others what to expect if they dare express a view the gang don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:12 PM

There's no point saying anything to you, Keith, unless it's taking the mick. You are just like McEnroe's umpire. You can NOT be serious. Ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:13 PM

Just a reminder what my case actually is.
What the wanna be bullies don't want posted.
They just want to make it all about me with pedantic nit picking in place of reasoned argument, because they have no argument.

Although the gang of five bullies deny it, Shah made grossly anti-Semitic statements.
That is not just my view. She now readily admits it, and all Parties including Labour recognise that fact
Just calling her a prat is an inadequate response to her blatantly racist comments.

She said, "The Jews are rallying!"

Guardian, "Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."


BBC, "The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

The bullies deny this is anti-Semitic.
It is just someone being a prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:17 PM

While I was typing, Steve has made another post.

Nothing about any of the issues, just another comment about me.
That is what we have to expect now on Mudcat if we dare say anything without their approval.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:47 PM

Just calling her a prat is an inadequate response.......

It is the equivalent of saying about Adolph........"oh, he was just a prat".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:16 PM

But I never said anyone was 'just a prat' did I poobad? Remember. Just half a dozen posts ago?

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM
...
Again, I never quoted you as saying "just."
That was my word for your position.


So, there you have in black and white, from Keith himself. I never said anyone was just a prat. That was Keith's (mis)interpretation.

Good job that some people don't actually read what is going on isn't it Keith. If no one read it then you would get away with things like

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:56 AM

(Quote from me) When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

(Your response) If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Followed closely by

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:50 PM

...
This is just a pedantic vendetta by a gang of would be bullies to try to discredit me because you have no answer to my actual case.

And

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM
...
Just pedantic nit picking because you have no reply to my actual case.
A nasty would be bully who will tolerate alternative views being expressed.

No wonder decent people will not express political views on this forum.
They know the will be hounded by a whole gang of bullies if they dare to antagonise any one of them.

But unfortunately for you people do read what is being said and what is more they can remember what happened more than 2 posts back.

You are quite right, Steve. You couldn't make it up :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 05:25 PM

The only person who wants to make this about you, Keith, is you. That much is clear/blatant.

It's Adolf, boobs, not Adolph. Do try to at least get your friends' names right if nothing else. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:42 AM

Dave,
But I never said anyone was 'just a prat' did I poobad?

No. I said it about you and you objected.
But it was a fair comment.
You said she was a prat, but nothing more. Just a Prat.
You equated Shah with Morris, who used one offensive and unacceptable word in an otherwise innocuous statement while Shah spoke of "Jews rallying" and advocated the final cleansing of Jews from the Middle East!
Appalling, blatant racism which you appear not to take seriously.
Do you even acknowledge it?
Both Steve and Jim deny it is anti-Semitic at all!
You of course never actually commit yourself.

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

But none of you could question the evidence.
My "so called evidence" was quotes from Shah herself, BBC, Guardian and all Parties including Labour.
Instead you went for me personally.
Not that I care. Not for myself anyway. I get off on standing up to bullying intimidation. That's why I am always taking you people on.
I recognise your defeat when you abandon all pretence at argument and resort to personal attack.

I do not "cry abuse and bullying" as part of my case or in defence of myself. Quote me if I ever have, liar.

But you people are destroying debate on this forum. That is why I highlight it.
We used to get all shades of opinion on political threads before they were dominated by you bullies.
Now people stay away because normal decent people, unlike me, do not want to be subject to personal abuse by a whole gang of nasty bullies.

Steve,
The only person who wants to make this about you, Keith, is you.
Blatant lie.
I always object to you attacking me instead of my arguments.
All your attempts to smear me as a person by misrepresenting things said in unrelated, years old threads.
The accusations.
The name calling.
I seek none of it and always object to it, only to have Dave say I "cry abuse and bullying."
I do not.
I just object to it. I want to discuss the issues not defend myself from all your smears.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:10 AM

Just to annoy you all, let's return to the actual discussion.
Shah advocated the transportation of the Jews from Israel, but Steve said it was a lie and me a liar.

I quoted the Guardian, BBC and Shah herself saying she did.
I was right and Steve was wrong.
Steve produced nothing but a series of personal attacks falsely accusing me of lies. Nothing on the actual issue.

Have any of you found anything yet?
Steve?
Dave?
Greg?
Jim?
Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 04:20 AM

More excuses, word twisting and wriggling from the master. No more to say. You have shown yourself up over and over again, Keith. Feel free to continue but I don't think I need to do any more to demonstrate what you are like. If you are so insecure that you feel the need to 'win' something I can compliment you on your mastery in making things seem other than they are. Most can see though it but you are really very good at it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 05:51 AM

Just personal stuff aimed at me and as usual, and as usual not a word about the issue.

Do you have anything to support Steve's assertion that it is all a lie and me a liar Dave?

Any of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:02 AM

All three of your posts this morning are - guess what - all about you, Keith. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:06 AM

Keith, they are ideologues, ideologues don't discuss issues that challenge their ideologies they simply reject any fact that doesn't fit their internal belief system and turn on anyone who dares oppose it. Very little difference them and religious zealots.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:09 AM

The number assigned to this post (unless some swine swoops in with a quick bit of cross-posting) is the same as the height as Scafell in feet. Now that is, at long last, something interesting in this thread.

Or is it Scafell Pike...🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:10 AM

Damn. But how appropriate! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:51 AM

Er ........ professor, could you point to my definition of "shameless" I can't recall posting such.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:35 AM

My favourite mountain of all the UK ones I've climbed is The Saddle in Kintail which is 3310 feet. I'll remember that when we get to post 3309 in this thread, then I'll bag it (what you call being an armchair Munro-bagger). That is, unless some swinish prat blatantly gets in before me again.

Or is it Penyghent... 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:40 AM

An Orca Killer Whale was washed up on the shore close by a couple of day ago. Local opinion seem to be that more Orcas are need to control the seal population which is devastating he fishing locally.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:49 AM

Penyghent is my all time favourite but the height (2,277 ) was passed by the count of this thread long ago. Drove past it today! It's Mrs G's birthday and I also picked up my new old car this morning - Another C-Max. We had a lovely drive out up Wharfedale then down Bishopsdale to West Burton. Contemplated going via Hubberhome and Langsthrothdale but I really fancied lunch at the White Lion just so we went via the lower road instead. Never been in before. Lovely pub. Food was quite expensive but well worth it. Went up Wensleydale to Hawes. Had a mooch round there including calling in my favourite village store - Elijah Allans - Then back via Ribblehead, Horton (hence Penyghent) and Settle. I would highly recommend it to anyone suffering from PMD (Post Mudcat Disorder)

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:01 PM

For village shops try Hunters in Hemsley, a FABULOUS shop, I spend a small fortune every time I visit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:44 PM

Ha!
Silence from all of them on the actual issue.
They have no argument, and never did.
They just tried to dominate the discussion with false personal accusations and bullying again, but this time, they failed.

Let's try again.
Shah advocated the transportation of the Jews from Israel, but Steve said it was a lie and me a liar.
I quoted the Guardian, BBC and Shah herself saying she did.
Do any of you have anything to say in support of Steve's claim.



(Rag, I can't recall you defining "shameless" or anyone saying you did.
Anything on the actual issue Rag?)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 03:25 PM

Having spent the day in one of the most beautiful of places I know we were pretty much on a high when we got back. Should I go to the gym? Nah. We had a walk through the local woods (Lyndhurst Wood)) ending up in our local for a couple of drinks. The Black Sheep bitter in there is to die for. Back home for a simple tea of assorted cheeses with various chutneys on toasted Polish bread. Yum!

I must say I do feel sorry for Keith but I will soon get over it I suppose.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM

What a great drive, Dave. God's own country. I've been hacking at my overgrown hedges for two days and getting big shoulder muscles. Looking good though.

What was that again, Keith? 🤠

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:20 PM

I have Wainwright's Pennine Way Companion and I've never forgotten what he said about Penyghent after his oft-tedious journey from Edale to the Dales: "A real mountain at last!"

The first time I went up Penyghent was with Vicar Shaw of Oldham, no relation, one of the finest field botanists who ever lived. He was 77 by then. When I was in my twenties he was a good friend of mine and, a damn sight more famously, was a friend of Roy Lancaster. I had the good fortune to meet Roy a few years ago and we had a great banter about our reminiscences of Vicar Shaw. A year or so later, Roy made a lovely half-hour Radio 4 programme about the vicar which, to my chagrin, I failed to record. The time we went up Penyghent, Vicar Shaw was after one thing only, the sight of Saxifraga oppositifolia, the purple saxifrage. It's an arctic-Alpine flower that's rare in England though slightly commoner in Scotland. Its location on the limestone cliffs high on Penyghent is famous. You have to go in April or May to see the gorgeous rosy purple flowers. The vicar was amazingly fit for a 77-year-old and easily made it to the cliffs. He spent a good few minutes in private admiring the saxifrage and taking pictures. We were only a short step from the summit and eventually I asked him if he was coming to the top with us for the view. "What the bloody 'ell do I want to do that for! I've seen what I've come to see and I'll see you lot in the car park!"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:46 AM

Another post about me Dave.

You raised the case of Shah and have no regrets, but you will not say if you think her comments were anti-Semitic or not!

The anti-Semitic nature of her comments are recognised by Shah herself and all the Parties including her own Labour Party, but not by Steve.
Where do you stand Dave?

Steve,
What was that again, Keith?

Shah advocated the transportation of the Jews from Israel, but you said it was a lie and called me a liar for referring to it.
I quoted the Guardian, BBC and Shah herself saying she did.
Do you have anything to say in support of your claim and accusation?

You have a record for making claims and assertions you can not justify.
Is this another?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 04:46 AM

No, but I wish Dave wouldn't make baseless assertions about mountain heights. According to my map, drawn up by a living cartographer and bought in a reputable mapshop, Penyghent is 2273 feet, not 2277. He's added four feet. Dave, you're NOT supposed to include your own height as you're standing on top. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

Nice one Steve :-D

Where do you stand Dave?

I though that was pretty bleedin' obvious. I like to stand at the top of Penyghent :-)

I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in making any comments about anything that Keith is involved in. Any comments that disagree with his already set mind will be ignored, called lies or twisted to suit his agenda. If anything like that is mentioned, the second line of defense is to call everyone who disagrees bullies with shitty moralities who are just getting at him. Makes a mockery of any decent discussion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:26 AM

I'll claim 3560, a figure I found for Snowdon, I have walked up that one (probably up the railway track and down the miners track). Mountain walking was never particularly my thing but Pip (mum) was very keen. I believe she knew the Peak District well and used to hitch from Brum where she trained as a physio (before I was born) and stop at places like Edale. If she could pick her own "God's country" though, it would be the Carneddau

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:34 AM

Next one to be reached will be Ben Vorlich at 3232.

Good game and we can do it in Metres for the earlier posts!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM

If you will not comment on the issue, why do you people come to the thread at all?

If you have no opinion, or are afraid to express one, why post here?

It appears that your motive is just to dominate the thread and stop certain views being expressed, by bullying and intimidation.

As Joe said, you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Steve, can you support your view that her comments were not anti-Semitic, and calling me a liar over it?

Dave, where do you stand on Shah's comments? Do you agree with Steve, or with Shah herself and the political parties including her own, the Labour party?

If you refuse to speak, will you at least tell us what you are afraid of?
What is your problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:02 AM

See post of 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

Dave, there is no reason given there for your refusing to state your view.
Do you agree with Steve or not?
Why won't you tell us?
Claiming to be afraid of what I might say is hardly convincing, and if you do not want to debate, why post at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:26 AM

See post of 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:25 AM

You're making a tit of yourself, Keith. Perhaps the Pap of Glencoe, on the slopes of which my brother claimed that he lost his virginity.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:29 AM

I did Dave.
As I said, there is no reason given there for your refusing to state your view.

Your gang is dominating the thread with its presence while refusing to enter discussion.
Your excuse that you are afraid of me is pathetic.

Your group behaviour is not conducive to friendly discussion on this forum. I hope someone is taking note of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:32 AM

Keith

As I said, there is no reason given there for your refusing to state your view.

That is a perfect example of my description. My exact words in case you really did miss them are

I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in making any comments about anything that Keith is involved in. Any comments that disagree with his already set mind will be ignored, called lies or twisted to suit his agenda. If anything like that is mentioned, the second line of defense is to call everyone who disagrees bullies with shitty moralities who are just getting at him. Makes a mockery of any decent discussion.

A perfectly good reason to not state my view. In this case you have ignored it.

And damn you - You got to Ben Vorlich :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:24 AM

Who needs to worry about what politicians said when we have wonders like this to behold

Heavy rain brings Long Gill, near Ingleton, back to life

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:33 AM

I'm curious of the name Penyghent. Perhaps I'll look it up further (other than briefly finding it is Yorkshire dales and a Wiki article which suggests Cumbric) but the name would otherwise to me look Welsh (I don't speak it, only know a few words) or at least pen y would amount to "top of the". Wiki suggests "ghent" as similar to "gwynt" so "top of the wind". How do those of you who have walked there read it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:50 AM

I believe it's a mystery, and I've read about that Welsh suggestion before. Another thing is that I always write it as a single word, unhyphenated. At one time the Ordnance Survey got into hot water for adding a superfluous "hill" after the name.

Nearby there's another favourite of mine that's a "Pen-," namely Pendle. I believe that it's incorrect to refer to it as Pendle Hill.

Anyway, they're both lovely and they're both in God's own country!

What group behaviour, Keith? We're all rugged individuals here!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:22 AM

Dave, it was you who raised the issue of Shah on the thread again.
You have no reason for refusing to state, yes or no, if you think Shah's comments were ant-Semitic.

No-one could twist that, so you are being dishonest about your reason for not doing so.

It is not that you do not want to discuss it. You could just stay away.
It is because you do not want it discussed.

Your presence here in force is to deter anyone who might want to.

Your tactics are despicable and I hope it is being noted by someone and something done to save the forum from you domineering bullies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:53 AM

I always understood Penyghent to mean 'hill of wind'. Which it certainly is after a night at the Golden Lion in Horton.

Keith - I have told you my reason. That you refuse to accept it is neither here nor there. Furthermore, after my road to Domestos moment at 21 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM, I think we will fare a lot better if I do not discuss anything of importance with you again. But I am more than happy to talk about my beloved Yorkshire Dales if you like.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:09 AM

Keith 10......the Gang of bullies Nil.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:13 AM

Oh dear. Looks you've got a mountain to climb with us lot now, Keith. Hope you're not have a fit of peak over it. If it's not one thing it's summit else with you.



Whaddam I like! 🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 12:59 PM

I really hope someone is someone is noting some of the responses and will take action as well, Keith. How does it feel to only have ake in your corner?

Steve, I hope you are not going to slope off after that posting? I thought down in your neck of the woods you would have been tor-n between posting it and reaching your pinnacle first.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:05 PM

OK, I know the sun's been strong but I don't want to hear any jokes about Brown Willy...

Anyway, I must take a shower now as Mrs Steve is complaining that MacGillycuddy reeks...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:21 PM

Interesting to hear that this mild, gentle bit of harmless and non-combative thread-drift is being put down to a gang of domineering bullies (especially when you consider that Keith's currently-missing regular ally is Teribus 😂). Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. In any case, none of this amounts to a hill of beans. Definitely not what you'd call over the top. I reckon Keith needs to seek alp.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:26 PM

Dave,
Keith - I have told you my reason. That you refuse to accept it is neither here nor there.

Of course I do not believe it. No-one would!
It makes no sense and is unbelievable.
Do you believe her comments anti-Semitic, yes or no?
How can that be " ignored, called lies or twisted?"

It can not be.
You are being dishonest.

It is not that you do not want to discuss it. You could just stay away.
It is because you do not want it discussed by anyone.

Your presence here in force is to deter anyone who might want to.

Your tactics are despicable and I hope it is being noted by someone and something done to save the forum from you domineering bullies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

Had a great last night in a bar right on the West coast, you can see the Atlantic from the window, you can't miss it, it's just across the lane.

The landlord Ritchie is a great guy, plays Guitar, Banjo, Mandolin and sings all very well, his good lady Bernie is a delight, there was Eugene on Box (very, very good) Eamonn on Bodhran, me and my good lady on guitar and vocals, a couple from Huddersfield both on Guitar and vocals, another English lass on vocals .........

I think we left there about 2 in the morning !!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 01:32 PM

Has anyone else noticed there is an echo on this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 02:22 PM

Face it, Keith. If everyone who no longer wanted to discuss it with you stayed away, you'd be talking to yourself. You're a forum pest, Keith. You've flogged your dead horse for so long that it's probably thoroughly tenderised by now. It's boring, Keith. There's a lot to discuss about politics. But your sick obsession with non-existent Labour antisemitism is belly-up. Gone to meet its maker. Dead in the water. Gone to join the choir invisible. Rung down the final curtain. It's an ex-topic, Keith. This is a late issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:02 PM

I am just not prepared to discuss anything with a devious sociopath who will stop at nothing to win imagined points. Is that clear enough?

I don't think it is an echo, Raggy. Someone farting maybe?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM

Farting? Maybe he tried to eat that hill of beans...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:50 PM

O dear... I'd best stay out after this and will attempt to do so but to try to get back on purely the OT drit...

A question for those who like Penyghent. Is is quiet?

I ask this as I mentioned Snowdon and my mothers preference for a particular section of Snowdonia. I guess reasons could include easy access (in crude terms, from our then Conwy/Llandudno area, just drive down the right side of the river a bit, turn right and you could, eg, be in Cwm Egiau) but one big one was that it was quiet. Snowdon literally had trainloads of people but I believe some of her walks were of the type, at least then, where you might only meet a couple of others in a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:08 PM

"and my mothers preference for a particular section of Snowdonia"

(different section of)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:40 PM

Penyghent is a fair old walk from the nearest town and is over 2000 feet high. So it's pretty quiet. Balm to the soul, I'd say. You'll meet the odd aficionado on your way up and down. But they are like you, true appreciators of all that's best in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 03:54 AM

It can get busy at times when the 3 peak challengers who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for are out. Penyghent is the first of the three so they are usualy quite boisterous then. Wait until they have done Whernside as well and realise that they also have Ingleborough to climb to see them quieten down :-)

Usually it is pretty quiet though. I have been up mid-week when the peak was covered in snow and not seen another person. I could see Blackpool tower but couldn't make out if anyone was showing their arse off it though :-) Distance to do the classic walk from Horton is not far at all - not much more than 6 miles - but the final ascent to the peak is bloomin' steep! Worth visiting the limestone pinnacle and Hull Pot, both just off the main path, on the way down. Once saw an old dear in a pink tracksuit and trainers mooching about the pinnacle so you can guess that it is pretty easy underfoot from there down to Horton.

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:43 AM

Oh Dear. No wonder they want to babble about the peaks.
This came out of the trough!


http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/two-bury-council-officers-deliberately-13362889

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:04 AM

Are you implying that this is a "serious Labour paedophilia problem?" Ever thought of being a Sun journalist, Iains? Hey, world out there, would you rather keep this as a digging-the-dirt-on-Labour thread or would you rather read about the Yorkshire Dales?

Dave, when I did the Three Peaks we started with Whernside and ended with Penyghent, thinking it was a bit more climactic that way. It did leave us with a long, weary trudge back to where we'd parked the car for Whernside, I must admit. I made the cardinal error of doing it in insufficiently broken-in boots. Took four quick pints in a pub in Settle to ease the pain....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:15 AM

I would have been more than tempted to use the train for that bit, Steve! For a folky I am no traditionalist :-)

Inanes link is not even worthy of comment.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:38 AM

"Inanes link is not even worthy of comment"
What a sorry human being you are if you consider child abuse as not worthy of comment.



#
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181783/Did-Jeremy-Corbyn-try-protect-fellow-Left-wingers-implicated-paedophile-scandal.
https://labour25.com/


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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM

Hasn't it occurred to you fellers that that Keith's obsessive crusade against the "massive Labour problem of (well it only seems to be) has more to do with her non-English religious culture/colour/racial/non-whitishness origins than it does her supposed antisemitic slip?
After all, anybody can make a biigotted slip, what with her , "cultural implants", "slave owning travellers", "brainwashed Irish children...
Don't let that stop you lads - it keeps him from infesting other threads
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:03 AM

fwiw, my participation in this drift was only a foolish attempt to apply some comments I made in another. I think I can reasonably try to paraphrase that as that some threads just go on with rows, positions are fixed and even another 1000 posts will not change anybody's mind. I believe I then suggested talking about things we have in common like gardening instead.   

This participation has already been taken as being part of a gang who I don't think I could join even if it existed (I'd differ in my belief there is a God for starters...) and apparently a desire to hide some story about a Labour cover up. Unfortunately, that is the way life works and I suppose we can all be guilty of it - putting reasons we want to see into things...

For the record, as for what I'd rather be discussing here. I'd rather be away but lack the sel discipline. The ugly truth is that I wrestle with drink problems. I can post for other reasons and, eg. do know a little about abc (I fixed the mandotab converter, originally from a site I started, fairly recently) and do eg try to play mandolin and tenor banjo in Irish sessions, etc. but if I get stuck down the bottom, it's usually connected, at least to start with, with a round of drinking. The sad fact is that in some ways, I view my own relationship with the forum as tainted and the bottom of the line poisoned. In saner times, I usually stay away rather than perhaps look in, find a nice thread (eg gardening or birds round the back) and then find I've got myself caught up in something else...

I genuinely do not want to feel the bottom of the line is poisoned (and I see my own good times here as well as the bad ones) and I don not feel matters from religion to politics should not be questioned. A question there is perhaps more whether the belligerence here could ever enable it...

I expect to get ripped apart for this but I'm trying to be open in terms of the way I'm seeing things at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

Well I think that trying to steer the thread away from the interminable attempts by a couple of idiots to taint the Labour Party at all costs by clutching at whatever straws they can dig out is a Good Thing. They are the trolls - yes, you, Keith, bobad and Iains - and we are trying to restore sanity. Thread drift is a peccadillo compared to the hateful, non-stop attempts at smearing by yesterday's people. The Manchester Evening News is a tatty right-wing rag, and in another thread Iains is trying to taint the BBC by resorting to Breitbart. Of course these things go on. That's life. Wouldn't like to hold too many Tories up as paragons of virtue either... but there are well over half a million of us in the Labour Party now and every member I've met has the one aim of trying to make this country a fairer place to live in. Go and dig for dirt elsewhere. Try the Tory Party for starters. You'll have a field day, I promise you.

And keep posting, Jon. You're a breath of fresh air next to some of these right-wing thread-polluters.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 10:26 AM

Steve,
Well I think that trying to steer the thread away....

Normal decent folk would just withdraw from a thread they did not like.
You people feel somehow entitled to determine how the discussion should go, dominate it with a mass of postings from your gang and deny anyone the right to discuss what they choose.
As Joe said, you are just a gang of bullies who dominate every political thread.

Dave,
I am just not prepared to discuss anything with a devious sociopath who will stop at nothing to win imagined points. Is that clear enough?

Then fuck off and allow anyone else to discuss what they want with who they want, instead of joining the continuing domination of the thread by your gang of cronies.

You now admit that it is me personally you have a problem with. Mainly that I keep showing up your arguments as vacuous whims that you can not support.

Why can't you just say if you find Shah's comments anti-Semitic or not?
What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 10:48 AM

The scandal you dismiss because reported in the Manchester Evening News is not that a Labour Councillor was a paedophile, but that child protection measures were delayed for political reasons.

The Times,
"A paedophile inquiry into a Labour politician was deliberately delayed by senior council officers in an attempt to boost the party's chances in the 2015 general election, an independent inquiry has found.
A report has concluded that Mike Owen, the former chief executive of Bury council, and Mark Carriline, its head of children's services, did not follow child protection rules for political reasons.
This was allegedly in an effort to ensure that claims surrounding Simon Carter, a disgraced former councillor, did not surface before the poll."

" the reports found that Mr Owen and Mr Carriline waited up to five weeks before carrying out child-protection measures that should have been implemented within 48 hours of the allegations being made.
They took eight days to inform the two schools of which Carter was a governor."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/council-delayed-abuse-inquiry-to-aid-labour-qfwp3ntkb

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 11:05 AM

Thinking again on Pen, I guess we could also consider Ben. It confuses the hell out of me but in Welsh for one, words mutate. I think pen would change to ben if you put a y in front of it. For those that played football in a village with Welsh speakers, "ar y ben" could be a header (on the head, I think).

Hopefully this time round, it's over and out for me.

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

Oooo! Someone's cage is rattled, using foul and abusive language.

Now should be a yellow card from a Mod at least.

Incidentally that same poster is obviously not very bright, despite another poster saying nummerous times that he is bored with that poster, he is still trying to ensure an outcome that will not happen.

Meanwhile on the Connemara coast in glorious sunshine we watched about 3 hours of the local regatta, sailing and rowing on a beautiful bay with a stunning background of mountains.

Truly, spectacular, breathtaking and utterly beautiful.

Out to the bar we visited on Thursday for more great music, song .......... and Guinness!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:21 PM

""A paedophile inquiry into a Labour politician was deliberately delayed by senior council officers nthe poll."
JAY-SUS!!!
You are now a certified lunatic Keith - does you8r obsession know no bounds?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:26 PM

There are plenty of "pens" down here in Cornwall, Jon. I suppose it's a bit closer to Wales. Not quite so many in East Cornwall though - it's a bit more Anglo-Saxon and a bit less Celtic round here!

No-one's denying you the right to discuss anything, Keith. Your problem is that you can't seem to find anyone to discuss things with just now. You can't force people to discuss what YOU want to discuss. That would be bullying. And you wouldn't know what normal and decent meant if they reared up and bit you on the arse. And I don't suppose you'll get too many takers for your Bury Council offering. Actually, it's a damn fine local authority. My old disabled mum gets amazing help from them in all sorts of ways. On the other hand, maybe I won't get too many takers for my Tory-sex-parties-with-underage-boys offering either. Some you win and some...you lose....😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 12:35 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9657036/How-Tory-paedophile-claims-were-covered-up.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mp-enoch-powell-investigated-as-alleged-member-of-westminster-paedophile-network-10142235.html

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/11/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-tory-paedophile-scanda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238188/Sir-Edward-Heath-paedophile-says-police-chief.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-thatchers-government-covered-up-a-vip-pedophile-ring

http://theleveller.org/2015/03/burd-epstein-phonebook/

http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/u-k-conservative-mp-killed-boy-at-sex-party-victim-of-pedophile-network-claims/wcm/654cef11-4aed-4395-a726-af26918c971c?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2F

Mad as a bag of frogs
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:06 PM

THATCHER, MI5, THE POLICE AND PAEDOPHELIA Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

Well done, Jim. That should shut 'em up. Idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 03:09 PM

Not a chance
Keith hasn't won anything yet and Iains...... well.... I mean to say!
You do realise we're feeding these trolls, don't you?
Oxygen of publicity (as Old Iron Knickers used to say) and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:42 PM

I see the usual gang resort to their usual trick. If they do not like the messenger, they do not have to believe the message.
Tell me boys do you have a problem accepting that if a seagull or a crow shits on your head then the outcome is the same:- a head covered in shit. Not really that difficult to understand now is it. Does it matter if the substantiated facts are printed in the sun, the times, or reported by theBBC, Al Jazeera, or RT.

You really do have simple little minds, do you not?

and another little titbit for you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebel-leader-abdul-hakim-belhaj-supreme-court-wins-right-sue-jack-straw-tor

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:54 PM

and a little thread drift so the gang do not feel isolated:


http://pureaircontrols.com/human-health-dangers-bird-droppings-associated-building-hvac-systems/

A tad more informative than babbling on about bits of rock and weeds doncha think!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 04:59 PM

You're a waste of space. And unfunny to boot. Don't let us stop you though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM

Is this the usual gang practising for their next joint offering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKURJBXq-sA

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:24 PM

Oh good. A little friend for Keithy to play with. Glad to see he is not on his own after all. Mind you, with friends like Inanes and ake, who needs enemies.

Glad to see that Keith is rattled enough to tell me to fuck off as well. I am sure he once told us that abuse was a sure sign of losing the argument. Or was it that he never indulges in abuse? I really can't remember as he changes his story so often.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:44 PM

http://muppets.disney.com/

Stevie chunder and gnome please identify yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 05:03 AM

More ill brought up abuse here
Give it ****** rest Iains
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM

Jim the solution is quite straightforward. If you, Stevie chunder, Gnome and their acolytes did not hurl out gratuitous abuse at everyone that holds a contrary view, there would be no need for the responses generated. It is quite clear to anyone following these threads that you are all there to bully, bluster, insult and gang up on all who dispute your view of the world.
I have been dealing with your sort all my working life. I know precisely how to deal with you.

You all share the arrogance of feeling that you dictate the subject matter and content of this forum and no other views at variance will be tolerated. You actuslly boast about destroying threads and chuntering on about any subject that jumps to mind when you are bored with the argument or cannot counter it. Most irritatingly, prior to jumping off at a tangent, you all throw insults about like confetti. This is typical trolling behaviour. "First, trolls are more likely to display noxious personality characteristics, that is, traits that impair one's ability to build relations and function in a civilised or pro-social way. In a comprehensive examination of their psychological profile, trolls were found to be more Machiavellian (impulsive and charming manipulators), psychopathic (cold, fearless and antisocial), and especially sadist than the overall population. Trolls enjoy harming and intimidating others, so much so that the authors of this study concluded that trolls are "prototypical everyday sadists", and that trolling should be regarded as online sadism. This is in line with the view of trolling as a form of cyberbullying."
I recognise certain character traits above that describe you all to a T.
What a totally unsavoury bunch you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:48 AM

No gratuitous abuse from this Gnome. Do you know what gratuitous means?

done without good reason; uncalled for.

Find any abuse that was without good reason or uncalled for from me. I shall not hold my breath.

Have any of your postings actually added anything to the thread?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 06:54 AM

Barking mad. And he's on a campaign in three separate threads. Hope his home life is happier...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:26 AM

Labour the party of the people !

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/labour-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/revealed-labour-mp-faced-criminal-charges-election-expenses/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10462871/Its-no-coincidence-the-MPs-found-guilty-of-fiddling-are-all-Labour.html

https://order-order.com/2016/10/25/labour-given-maximum-fine-expenses-fraud-mcnicol-committed-offence/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

I think it's just you, Steve. He loves you :-)

Took the grandsons swimming this morning and then onto the zipwire just outside the leisure centre. Airville Park in Skipton is a lovely place for all but especially for kids. Back home for a first for me. Son #3 and I had kedgeree for breakfast. Really enjoyed it. Having fish for tea later too as we are being invaded by pescatarians. Good job I like fish :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 07:40 AM

Leave him to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 08:26 AM

Steve,
You can't force people to discuss what YOU want to discuss.

No, and unlike you people I would not try.
Instead of just avoiding a discussion that is not going your way, you and your gang swamp it with off subject posts and intimidate decent folks from joining.

They see the abuse you dish out. I celebrate it as an admission of your defeat in debate, but most normal people are put off by it.

You deny that Shah advocated the transportation of Jews from the Mid.East even though she freely admits that she did.
You called me a liar over it.
It is reasonable then for me to ask you to back your accusations.
Your problem is that you can't, so you try to silence the debate.

Jim,
""A paedophile inquiry into a Labour politician was deliberately delayed by senior council officers nthe poll."
JAY-SUS!!!

Do you not see anything wrong in that Jim?
Putting more children at risk for political purposes?

Of course there are paedos in every group, but those people kept it quiet not even telling the schools he was involved with.

If you had acknowledged that was wrong, or just ignored it, I would not have followed it up.

But Steve denied it as he denies what Shah said.
You lie to protect your ideology, because you are told "The end justifies the means."

And you call honest folk liars, while blatantly lying for your worthless creed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 09:12 AM

Give. it up, Keith. The game's up. There's nothing honest about your approach. You want to smear the Labour Party with whatever trivial bit of dirt you can dig up. Well I'm a member, and I and the other 552000 members resent the likes of you hypocritically ignoring the major moral issues in your right-wing organisations and homing in on what are, in the overall scheme of things, near-irrelevancies. By the way, I haven't denied anything about Bury Council. You made that up. So what's new.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 09:27 AM

Stevie boy.Pointing out that the Labour party has some very dubious members scattered throughout it's ranks is offering a public service. You should appreciate it instead of responding to every post like a rabid ferret on steroids. Have you been in the sun too long or did a rabbit bite your nose last time you ventured down a burrow?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 09:34 AM

A little ditty for stevie chunder.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 09:36 AM

How many? How many out of 552000? Name them! Come along, every single one. As an honest member of the party I want to know the scale of the problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 10:18 AM

Steve, you dismissed the story because it was in the Manchester Evening News.
The scandal was not that Labour had a paedo. Every organisation does.
The scandal was that they kept it quiet thereby putting more kids at risk.
Are you happy with that?
Had you acknowledged or even ignored the story I would have left it.
But you denied it was a story.

You also denied that Shah advocated transporting the Jews out of M.E. even though she freely admits she did.
You called me a liar over it.
Why will you not admit you are wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 10:36 AM

SOS    dit dit dit dah dah dah dit dit dit

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 12:12 PM

You really aren't getting this, are you, Keith. I don't give a monkey's flying fart about those two issues in the context of this thread. Do you know why? Because you clearly have ulterior motives for dredging up the stories and I don't wish to be drawn into your stupid little game. When I meet normal, balanced people with honest and open minds I discuss these issues or issues like them. But I'm not discussing them with you because you are closed-minded and have one aim only, to smear the Labour Party. You and your sorry Tory ilk need to realise that smearing Labour has just lost you your majority. It's yesterday's tactic, Keith, and the fact that you won't give it up makes you yesterday's man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 02:26 PM

And the most hilarious quote of the day from stevie " I puke in your general direction."Chunder

"We waste a lot of energy here checking the accuracy of what people say when they could have afforded us the good manners to check it for themselves first"

I had to sit down I was laughing so hard. Best entertainment in days. Hard to believe the twerp was being serious. Is he guilty of substance abuse or what???????

You smug, posturing, silly little man! You are so incredibly stupid you cannot see just how pathetic that appears to the more rational of us here. I give you 10 out of 10 and a gold star for self delusion. Perhaps your medication is in severe need of revision. Better call out jimmy and the wrinkled gnome for a little support you sad diminutive dwarf.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:19 AM

Inanes - I see you did not take any notice of your mate.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 23 Jul 17 - 08:26 AM
...
They see the abuse you dish out. I celebrate it as an admission of your defeat in debate, but most normal people are put off by it.


Keith. I hope you are going to join me in admonishing the poster of the abuse above.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:38 AM

Corbyn for PM:- God help us.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4082787/jeremy-corbyns-u-turn-on-tuition-fees-debt-is-jaw-dropping-and-only-a-ruse-to-persuade-vot

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-urged-to-apologise-to-graduates-over-uturn-on-student-debt-a3594076.html

Must be a hell of an ideology for the ferrets to support it. Notice two sources in case they want to claim it is false news. I really need some help to make a cage for them, they would be 10 times worse if they went feral.

No doubt the follow up will be about.weeds or wobbling their carcasses around the peak district.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 05:13 AM

I celebrate this abuse as an admission of your defeat in debate.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 05:18 AM

It is not a U-turn. The alleged policy was never in Labour's manifesto and his remarks during the campaign were misrepresented by the right-wing tabloids. You went ballistic yesterday when I corrected you over your uninformed statement concerning the age of consent. You haven't learned. I suggest that you resort to slightly more balanced sources that the Sun and Standard, both of which embed smears in their "reporting."

Putting right-wing spin on stuff isn't unique to Keith, Dave!

Do try to keep your blood pressure down as you type the inevitable insulting ranting response to this, Iains, and try to remember that you're impressing nobody. One day you'll look back at your your posting behaviour over the last couple of days and wish to God that Mudcat had a retrospective delete button.

By the way, if anyone wants to read about the disastrous impact of Cameron's referendum catastrophe, take a look at the Guardian's Brexit Watch item today. Real income down, productivity crashing, the falling pound causing inflation, borrowing up, growth grinding to a halt. The double-page spread is full of unalloyed factual information, Iains, as well as expert analysis. Now that's a source - only one source, of course, but I'd back it over those shabby tabloids of yours any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 05:26 AM

I was going to correct him on the Peak District comment as well Steve but if I am on Penyghent I would prefer him to be in the Peak District.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 05:54 AM

Do you mean his peak district comment, Dave? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:03 AM

pRoBaBly

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:24 AM

The Labour manifesto is still available for download (as is the Conservative manifesto).

So if you really want to, it is easy to check what was in the manifesto, rather than rely on third party interpretations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:32 AM

He could certainly be "Kinder" in his posts, Dave. In fact, unless he improves we should shun him. And I can be a "Great Shunner" when I want to be. Anyway, enough of this "Bleak, low" form of humour. Don't want to "Dent" his ego too much. Catch you later, me old "Cove." Are you "Wharfe" anywhere nice this afternoon, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:35 AM

From the Times: a well established source of false news for the ferrets.

"During the general election campaign, Jeremy Corbyn thought Labour's tuition fee policy was one of the finest feathers in his cap. But as the policy unravels, it is increasingly looking like an albatross around his neck."

I also notice Shaw you chose not to correct Joe's statement about the age of consent. That also could be elaborated on. I am surprised a vacuous pedant such as yourself would let such an opportunity pass you by.
However nit picking was not germane to the thrust of his argument, as was not mine. Have you chosen which thread you will poison next with the aid of your motley crew?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:53 AM

Always somewhere nice when not in the office, Steve. Airedale if nowhere else :-) The office itself is OK it is just the environs that leave a lot to be desired!

I think we should continue to let him make a Devil's Arse of himself. I am sure it is not what his Mam Tor-t him but if he can Rushup and Speedwell to oblivion this place will be much happier. As to who will Win and Lose, we can only Hope they get the pun.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:55 AM

Keith. I don't give a monkey's flying fart about those two issues in the context of this thread.

If you mean paedophilia, I don't either but the behaviour of those Labour councillors who kept it quiet was despicable.
I do not believe Labour has a particular problem with it.

I do believe they have a particular problem with anti-Semitism because so many prominent and authoritative Labour people have said they do.

You were prepared to discuss that, and you denied that Shah advocated transporting the Jews out of M.E. even though she freely admits she did.
You called me a liar over it.
Why will you not admit you were wrong to do that?

Dave, you called me "a devious sociopath" so do not complain to me about other people's abusiveness.

Why will you not say if you agree with Steve that Shah did not advocate transporting Jews when she freely admits she did?

Why do you come to this thread when you never comment on the issues, only on the contributors?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:03 AM

Dave, you called me "a devious sociopath" so do not complain to me about other people's abusiveness.

And you stated I had shitty morals and told me to fuck off, Keith but let us not get bogged down with who started what. I am not complaining, Just wondering if you will join me in condemning Inanes tirade of abuse against me and Steve or do you not believe that abuse is an indication of having lost an argument when someone who is supporting you resorts to it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

Dave, I know that you and your friends always resort to abuse and name calling when you have no other reply.

Ians is quite new to me. We have little in common.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:40 AM

So do you condemn his abuse as well?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:35 AM

Your Mam Tor one was a masterstroke, Dave! Eyam peeved I didn't think of it first!

You have a lot more in common with Iains than you think, Keith. I know how embarrasssing it must be.

That's just a random piece of opinion from The Times, Iains, which comes from the same stable as The Sun. I see that the right wing still haven't learned their lesson from the election campaign that trying to tie albatrosses around Corbyn's neck was the shortcut to losing a Commons majority. They all seemed to fall off, didn't they. Including the one that poor Keith is still trying to reattach with a piece of sellotape.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:36 AM

And I am now swooping in....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:37 AM

...to claim post 3310, The Saddle! Next stop, Liathach at the magic number 3456!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:51 AM

Good bit of albatross with some abuse thrown in here

Monty Python live at the Hollywood Bowl

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 09:55 AM

Another great day at the Regatta yesterday, the weather was sublime, barely a cloud in the sky and the sight of Galway Hookers (no naughty comments please) racing down the bay keeled over in the breeze was breath-takingly beautiful.

They are truly fantastic vessels and achieve a very good rate of knots, some of those racing were over 100 years old though you'd not know it to look at them.

In addition there were some Naomhogs a smaller version of the hooker and plenty of currach racing.

A lovely, lovely day.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 11:12 AM

Dave, I disapprove of abuse, but Ians' can not be linked to losing a debate as yours can.
Steve, one thing I do have in common with Ians is a contempt for your bullying attempts to dominate this thread as so many others.

That's just a random piece of opinion from The Times, Iains,

No Steve. Corbyn has been criticised widely for changing his stance on student debt.

guardian,
"Jeremy Corbyn denies promising to wipe graduates' student debts
Labour leader said before election he would 'deal with' debts, but now says that was not a commitment to write them off"
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jul/23/jeremy-corbyn-denies-promising-to-wipe-student-debts

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 12:07 PM

Just so long as you agree that all abuse is wrong, the reason for it does not matter. The volume of it does and if you check the ammount emenating from inanes against that emenating from anyone else I think you will be quite alarmed to have him as an ally.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 01:47 PM

Agree? Not with you.
I do not approve of abuse.

Please tell us if you agree with Steve that Shah did not advocate transporting Jews when she freely admits she did?

Why do you come to this thread when you never comment on the issues, only on the contributors?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 02:40 PM

I have commeneted on the issues many times. The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other organisation. I have linked a survey that backs that up but you did not believe that. I said that Shah was a prat (note not just a prat) but you did not believe that. A discusion such as this also calls the contributors to account. I have done that but you did not like it. I wish to calm things down by discussing things far more pleasant than politics. You don't. I refuse to be drawn into circular arguments about things I have already made clear. You, for some reason, want to repeat the same old shite ad infinitum. You want to play by your own rules. I don't. End of.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:34 PM

We "comment on the issues" until we're blue in the face. Been there, done it, got ten thousand t-shirts. There comes a time when sane people realise that you are not worth discussing things with. Your mind is fixed from the outset. You think that you're the debating dog's bollocks. You tell people who disagree with you that they lose. It's stupid, Keith. You're on your own. Why don't you ring Naz and ask her to marry you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:43 PM

Has this ever been about the labor party?

I think you are all blind.
If you are blind you do NOT SEE.

Steve; a NOT SEE
Greg; a NOT SEE
You're all NOT SEES ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 04:52 PM

I'm a member of the party, I can spell its name and I'm critical about a lot of what goes on. But I'm not giving the likes of Keith the oxygen he needs to go to town on the party
because he has a one-track mind and he's a bigot. I like your posts, Donuel, but this last one is not your finest hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:17 PM

I've been member of the LP since '76, currently it's a cesspit with idiots in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 06:31 PM

Meanwhile here on the Connemara there have been sessions going in eight of the pubs, three of which are still on-going at 11.30 and will be for a while yet.

The sun has been shining all day, good conversation in the bars, no bitterness no bile ..........

Now which would I prefer to discuss ............ no contest the beauties of this area without doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:14 PM

Nice to see an LP member with integrity on the forum, Shakey.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:23 PM

I remember the '80s, the idiot in Coventry, the idiot in Liverpool. I won't dignify them with names but I understand at least one of them has applied to re-join. Jesus it was a struggle to remove MT & clean up the party and now it has to be done again.

But they won't win in the end 'cause they're wrong :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:36 PM

Well why are you in it, then? Get out there and bloody well fight to get it changed. Get down to your local branch and meet the grassroots members and give them hell. The Labour Party is not bigger than its grassroots. I've never in my life been a member of anything that there wasn't a lot wrong with. You have a choice. Roll your sleeves up, get involved and change it. Or just get out. Or do what you do, stay put and whinge. The latter is known as the Chuka Umunna syndrome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 07:49 PM

"Or do what you do, stay put and whinge."

You have no idea what I do, I have no idea about you but I'm learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:03 PM

You've just told us that you've been a member of a party you appear to hate for forty years. You tell us what you hate but there's not a word about what you've done to change things. Do apprise us.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:09 PM

Steve thank you, Out of character I stole that joke from Steven Colbert

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:17 PM

That's an interesting debating tactic you have Steve, first criticize someone and then ask for their standpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:26 PM

You used the word hate twice in quick succession when actually I never said it once.

You've just told us that you've been a member of a party you appear to hate for forty years.

Now did you mean this, if you did please quote where I've said I have hated the LP for 40 years.

Or did you mean

You've just told us that you've been a member of a party for forty years you appear to hate

which I think you'll agree has a different meaning. No matter but if this is what you meant then please quote where I simply hate the LP - slightly easier except that I never said that either did I?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:36 PM

I'm a very simple man, Shakey. You told us that you've been a member since 1976 yet you haven't had a single good word to say about it. Forgive me for thinking that your standpoint is distinctly odd. I don't generally play word games and the only tactic I tend to employ is to ask people what they actually mean by what they've said. I invite you to clarify your apparently strange relationship with the Labour Party. If you don't bother, I won't say another word.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:45 PM

Hatchet has been buried and I've even laid a nice piece of turf over it so you can't even tell it's there.

Yes I've had a strange relationship with LP, no I'm not going to go into it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 08:48 PM

I did of course count the number of paces to the shed just in case I ever need to dig it up

:-)

Nighty night

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 17 - 09:12 PM

Well in a way I suppose that independently-minded people always have a sort of arms-length relationship with anything they decide to join, whether it's the pub session, the bowling club, a trade union or a political party. On the whole, though, you might have thought that the person joining would see at least some good...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 02:57 AM

Iains - No posts between Aug 00 and Apr 16

Shakey - No posts between Sept 05 and Jul 17

Iains - Stops posting on this thread 24-Jul-17 - 06:45 AM

Shakey - Starts posting on this thread 24-Jul-17 - 06:17 PM

Not that I am one for conspiracy theories or anything...

Something about you brings then out of the woodwork Steve :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 04:00 AM

Well wrinkled little gnome we probably don't have a compulsion to post as frequently as you and your odious little mates. Unlike some I am not obsessed by mudcat. I will admit to responding to the ridiculous stances taken by your mob and I take pride in responding to your constant insults and bullying.
   There is a reason few people contribute below the line these days. That reason is you and your little mates insisting you control the content and the direction the dialogue travels. Any counter views are belittled, mocked, bullied, ganged up on.................
Do you get the message gnome? You have a disgusting technique of playing the innocent before popping up and firing-quite the coward are you not? In reality you are so far up shaw's a***s you could have a second career as a suppository.
   When you and you pathetic little mates clean up your act we could have far more interesting debates with much wider participation.
You can hand it out but the least whiff of a response and you all start screeching, normally led by jimmy the ranter who pops up in all sorts of places just to criticise. I wonder how many appeals to the mods you all make between yourselves. The typical response of bullies.
Sad little people really, are you not? and we must not forget greg. A man with a severe medical problem of incessant trumping. Someone should tell him there is a cure for flatulence. According to recent rumours he is so full of shit he requires 2 assholes, this may account for the flatulence I suppose.
Have a nice day

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 04:32 AM

Another post full of sweetness and light from Inanes. Strange that it follows the unusual 'coincidence' that I highlighted :-) He has neither the knowledge or imagination to create a really good diatribe though.

Hope you are taking note, Keith.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:05 AM

If you want a shining example of what drives people away, read today's 04.00 am post on this thread. Clearly, the irony has escaped its author. And it not the most abusive of his many abusive posts by a long chalk.

It's also odd that he claims that we have driven people away. After all those years of absence he was atttracted to return to join the fray, as was Shakey. I think we may actually draw people in, Dave. Not necessarily life's greatest desirables...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:19 AM

I can't hear you, Steve. I am up your a***s apparently. Although how you acquired multiple ones, which one I am up and how I got there is a bit of a mystery.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:21 AM

Hang on, I'll pass you a snorkel...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 09:24 AM

Not a Hamster, are ya Dave? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 09:57 AM

Hamster? HAMSTER? Bloody luxury. I used to dream of being a hamster...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 10:49 AM

I fail to see how posts to this thread prevent other posters enjoying the other threads in the be section. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM

Dave,
The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other

That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is. There have been no complaints from Jews in other parties.

I said that Shah was a prat (note not just a prat) but you did not believe that.

I think that making racist comments is worse than being a prat.
You did not say she was anything but a prat, so just a prat to you.

What you refuse to say is if you believe as Jim and Steve do that her remarks were not anti-Semitic and she did not advocate the transportation even though she freely admits she did.

Will you now?
Why not?
Nothing circular or repeated. Entirely new.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:59 AM

Please back up your assertion that many prominent members of the Labour Party have said that the party is "more antisemitic than any other." I want their names and I want the quotes from them clearly to that effect. And I'm expecting many, which is more than several. You are the master of the throwaway remark that assumes that we're all stupid and that you'll get away with it. So, names and quotes, please. It should be a fairly lengthy post, considering that there are so many. According to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 01:19 PM

I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith. No need to repeat it. And yes, I do refuse to drawn any further into you little point scoring game.

I am willing to offer a suggestion though. You believe you have won something or another so carry on believing that. I believe that you are barmy so I will carry on believing that. Neither of us are doing anyone any harm. We are both happy. It is a win-win situation and everyone can get on with talking about more interesting things.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 02:25 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4728138/Nick-Gibb-says-Corbyn-apologise-student-debt.html

From the Labour manifesto:
The abolition of tuition fees and reintroduction of maintenance grants, at a cost of £11.2bn
(Latest revision 100billion+)
Labour always has been careless with other people's money!

George Osborne's Evening Standard has splashed on Guido's student debt scoop from this morning. Team Corbyn have a new line: that frontbenchers Imran Hussain and Sharon Hodgson were "mistaken" about Labour's policy and shouldn't have said that Jez was planning to wipe out debts. If Corbyn's own top team were mistaken, not sure how voters were meant to understand it.

and the icing on the cake is discredited blair's foundation poll results below.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170717/281814283912770

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM

And even with all these stories from the likes of the Daily Heil they still wiped out the Tory majority. I suspect thst is what rankles our pet right wingers on here most of all. :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:08 PM

Any improvement on the Standard and the Mail? 😂😂😂

Presumably I don't need a link to remind you that Cameron said that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. Or that Theresa May said she would not call an election. Grow up, Iains. It's politics, dear boy, politics. By the way, there was no promise apropos of tuition fees in the Labour manifesto. Check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:18 PM

To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees but no promise to cancel student debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:40 PM

there was no promise apropos of tuition fees in the Labour manifesto. Check it out.

To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees


Well that's cleared that up

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:49 PM

Steve's more recent post is correct. On page 43 it says "Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees."

It says nothing about debts built up because of past fees. Claims it did are either mistaken or a delibwrate distortion. In particular the NME interview did not claim Labour would cancel those debts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 05:55 PM

I think in the NME he said that Labour would deal with the debt problem.

Can you clarify what he meant?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:05 PM

Yes. Here is a lengthy clip out of the NME interview:

"Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I'm looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden. I don't have the simple answer for it at this stage – I don't think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all of this – but I'm very well aware of that problem. And I don't see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it."

See? No promise to repay the debt. And a clear admission he didnt have a simple answer at that point. The only promise is to look at it and 'deal with' a lack of balance between those on £9000 a year compared to other years.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:10 PM

Yes I had already read it.

Now what do you think he meant with "deal with it"? He was basically promising the (ex)students that they wouldn't have to pay it back; it's called a bribe.

It's politics, dear boy, politics

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:21 PM

Cheers, DMcG. Always happy to correct myself and to have the correction reinforced!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:30 PM

No point in arguing, but since you have read it you will see he gives a list of ways that are not writing off the debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 06:34 PM

Bribe, Shakey? Come off it. You could say that any manifesto commitment by any party that favours one particular sector is a bribe, even if it's intended as a correction for unfairness. Thatcher predicated her whole premiership on bribes, if that's the way you want to look at it. She bribed council house owners with massive discounts. She bribed working people by privatising utilities and selling shares at disgracefully cheap prices. Pensioners, who actually vote, have been bribed for decades. The current rash of populist politics is no more than a set of bribes. If that's the way you want to look at it. Alternatively, you could just accept that it's politics, dear boy, politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 07:04 PM

"Any improvement on the Standard and the Mail? 😂😂😂"

Interesting the pack still insist on putting the source of the news first and promptly slag it off before trying to manipulate the content to their own agenda.

Here is a wriggling labour clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4gZjLiNRbc

The actual manifesto states:
"Labour believes education should be free, and we will restore this
principle. 1o one should be put off educating themselves for lack of
money or through fear of debt.There is a real fear that students
are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years. Since the Conservatives came to power, university tuition fees have been trebled to over £9,000 a year,and maintenance grants have been abolished and replaced with loans.The average student now graduates from university, and starts their working life, withwith debts of £44,000.Labour believes education should be free, and we will restore this principle. 1o one should be put off educating themselves for lack of money or through fear of debt.There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years.Since the Conservatives came to
power, university tuition fees have been trebled to over £9,000 a year,and maintenance grants have been abolished and replaced with loans.The average student now graduates from university, and starts their working life, with debts of £44,000.Labour will reintroduce maintenance grants for university students, and we will abolish university tuition fees. University tuition is free in many northern European countries, and under a Labour government it will be free here too"

So above is what the manifesto stated but the message spread by supporters and by the great leader went much further than the above and that is what they are being taken to task on.It may well be politics dear boy politics, but it is also bribery of young people led to believe that what they wanted to hear they actually heard, and as a result voted upon. The Romans called the crime AMBITUS. I think a case could be made for arguing electoral fraud. Perhaps those misguided quotes we hear of were the result of speaking in tongues, or more likely with forked tongues.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 07:16 PM

But the Tories had to abandon large tracts of their manifesto and sell their souls to the DUP in order to retain power. They are not going to do lots of things they said they'd do. Triple lock, anyone? The LibDems got their hands on a bit of power and immediately went back on their tuition fees promise. Manifestos are more aspiration than promise and 'twas ever thus. You are homing in, for ideological motives, on statements made which are of uncertain meaning that were not even part of a manifesto. Bully for you, the Mail and the Standard, but that's what partisans always do. Politics, dear boy, politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:57 AM

That is an odd choice clip, Iain. I expected to hear a Labour MP talking about student debt, which is the current point of discussion.

Since you quoted from the Labour manifesto at length (and I congratulate you for that: I always read all the main parties manifestos before I vote) and go on to say "So above is what the manifesto stated but the message spread by supporters and by the great leader went much further than the above" I take it that you agree, whatever anyone else said, that the manifesto contains no promise to reduce student debt.

I have also quoted at length from the NWE article in which Corbyn explicitly says "I don't have the simple answer for it at this stage". Do you agree that "I don't have an answer" is not the same as "I know! Let's pay off all student debt"?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 04:16 AM

Well Steve, the meat of the message was in the last paragraph.
Let me elaborate.

Sharon Hodgson MP Tweet:
"Jeremy Corbyn: Labour could write off historic student debts. All those in their early twenties with student debt vote labour.........

Students who have already paid £9000 per year on university tuition fees could have their debts cleared Jeremy Corbyn has revealed"

and Imran Hussein is filmed saying:"Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the tuition fees will be abolished straight away from September if there's a Labour government, and that we will bring back immediately EMA."And also that every existing student will have all their debt wiped off".

Looking around the table at the pupils he adds: "That's fantastic news, isn't it guys?"

If those actions were not designed to make young gullible people vote labour then the moon must be made of green cheese.

Now there are many ways of interpreting the above.
They were out to deliberately mislead the electorate.
They had no idea of the contents of their manifesto.
They were indadequately briefed
They were not safe to be allowed out on their own
They would say anything to curry favour.
They were out to buy votes..................................

The labour party is clearly caught both tweeting and in recorded footage proposing actions they are now trying to deny.
I hope they have a method statement for backpedalling and that their risk analysis is up to par. Experience indicates backpedalling to be extremely hazardous. Long term they have probably done themselves considerable damage-students past, present and future are unlikely to forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 04:42 AM

Experience indicates backpedalling to be extremely hazardous.

What, you mean backpedaling on things like calling an election, increasing NI contributions and changing the funding for social care?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM

Steve,
Please back up your assertion that many prominent members of the Labour Party have said that the party is "more antisemitic than any other."

I did not put that in quotes, but I refer you to the numerous people I have quoted saying that it is a particular problem for the Party.

Dave,
I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith.

No you have not. You have just said she was a prat. We all make prats of ourselves at times, but we do not all post racist comments on social media.
Since YOU brought her back into the discussion some weeks ago now, you have never said if you agree with Steve and Jim that she was not being anti-Semitic and did not advocate the transportation of Jews even though she freely admits she did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:11 AM

Steve,
To clarify, there was the promise to abolish tuition fees but no promise to cancel student debt.

When we discussed it here most people took it to mean that.
Front bench labour shadow Minister Imran Husain said at the time, "Every existing student will have all their debts wiped off."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:14 AM

"I have said my piece on antisemitism in the Labour party and on Naz Shah, Keith."

No you have not.

Yes I have. The fact that you do not accept what I have said is neither here nor there. I have still said it and see no point in taking it any further.

We all make prats of ourselves at times, but we do not all post racist comments on social media.

What, you mean like like Anne Marie Morris using the word 'nigger'? Which is what I actually brought up.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Shakey
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:24 AM

@Steve 6:34

I agree completely.
Just two clarifications.

• This thread is (supposed to be) about the LP so I only mentioned them.
  
  
• The accusation of bribe relates to the NME interview and not the manifesto, it was a clear opportunistic statement.
  

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:59 AM

So you lied again, Keith. Tsk. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 06:33 AM

That's fine, Shakey, but let's keep this "bribes" malarkey in its proper wider context. It's what politicians do. And sweetshops. And supermarkets. I'm currently being bribed by M&S with 25% off six. It's not the right word. It might be in Nigeria or Zimbabwe.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 10:35 AM

Meanwhile out here on the Connemara it,s been a mixed day, sunshine this morning and torrential rain this afternoon. Tonight will be another session in a small village along the coast. Bliss!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:01 PM

Dave,
The fact that you do not accept what I have said is neither here nor there.

I do accept what you have said.
It is what you have not said that I ask about.

Since YOU brought Shah back into the discussion some weeks ago now, you have never said if you agree with Steve and Jim that she was not being anti-Semitic and did not advocate the transportation of Jews even though she freely admits she did.

Steve,
So you lied again, Keith. Tsk.

I have not lied.
You have not even said what lies you are falsely accusing me of. Tsk tsk.
We know for a fact that Labour has a serious problem because of statements from numerous prominent people including Sadiq Khan, Tom Watson, the current and former leaders of Scottish Labour, and the "entire NEC" which includes Corbyn himself.

I can give the quotes again, but Dave does not like repetition and circularity.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:13 PM

Ya know, I'm beginning to think that the Professor is a love child of Donald Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 12:30 PM

Greg as ever, just personal abuse and nothing at all to say on the subject.
The mods choose not to enforce it, but personal abuse is not acceptable on this forum, so neither are you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 01:45 PM

HI

naah

They all come from the Diane Abbot school of Mathematics.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 05:16 PM

Cheap shot, Mike and I know it is beneath you. The things that Dianne Abbot has had to put up with in her career give her a good excuse to make the occasional cock up. In my opinion that is!

Keith

It is what you have not said that I ask about.

There is an awful lot that I have not said about an awful lot of things. I am not going to discuss them with someone who just wants to score points in some bizarre contest that only he knows the rules of.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 17 - 06:41 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM   A post from Keith.

"Dave,
The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other

That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is."

Very, very clear indeed, Keith. Dave says that the Labour Party is no more antisemitic than any other. You say that many prominent members say that it is more antisemitic than any other. So I ask you to name the names of the many prominent members who have SAID THAT LABOUR IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER. You can't name them. The reason for that is that your statement that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT IT IS is a downright lie. You know very well that there are NOT many prominent members who have said that Labour IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER. You hedge and ditch around, you fudge and you dissemble. But what you can't bring yourself to do is admit that the statement that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS HAVE SAID THAT IT IS is pure fiction. You can't support that statement. You lied. You lied over Wheatcroft and you still won't admit it after three years. I'm a very patient man, Keith. You are lying yet again here. I have all the time in the world. I won't drop this. You know that, you clown. God knows why you do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:46 AM

Dave, I am not asking you to discuss anything.
Just to clarify your views on Shah.

Do you agree with Steve and Jim that her comments were not ant-Semitic and she did not advocate transportation even though she freely admits both, or with me that she did.

I doubt that you are concerned about hurting my feelings by disagreeing with me.
I am sure you do agree with me but are concerned about your friends' feelings.
They are grown men Dave.
They know that even friends can not agree on everything.

Steve,
Very, very clear indeed, Keith. Dave says that the Labour Party is no more antisemitic than any other.
That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is.

Yes. They have said that Labour has a serious problem with it, not other parties.
Labour Jews have complained about the Party's anti-Semitism but none from other parties have.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 03:50 AM

These twots have had a go at antisemitism, misogyny, paedophelia - all a dead letter in the real world now
I really can't see the point in feeding the trolls - thay produce nothing but hate-filled extremism, they always have
"Do you not see anything wrong in that Jim? Putting more children at risk for political purposes?"
If it were true it is reprehensible
You have no concern for the welfare of children unless there is extremist right capital to be made from it
You have been given masses of reports involving high placed establishment individuals involved in child-rape, abuse and possible murder - not a frown, not a murmur, not even an acknowledgement - certainly no concern for the victims
You ride the victims of paedophelia as if they were chargers in your crusade against the Labour Party
You are one sick, sadistic extremist individual
More to ignore - you have had similar and your concern for child welfare is such that you chose to ignore them and press on with your hysterical campaign - children really do need concern such as yours to keep them safe
Jim Carroll

https://www.corbettreport.com/pedophiles-in-politics-an-open-source-investigation/

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

https://news.vice.com/article/did-the-british-establishment-cover-up-a-political-pedophile-ring-a-new-zealand-judge-will-decide

http://time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-horrific-pedophilia-coverups/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20520-the-u-k-government-pedophiles-who-got-away-with-spiritual-murder

http://www.newagora.ca/evidence-of-organized-pedophilia-and-child-trafficking-implicates-governments-media-churches-and-charities/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:20 AM

NBC, 1 hour ago,
"Anti-Semitism Claims Hound U.K.'s Labour Party Despite Rise in Polls"
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/anti-semitism-claims-hound-u-k-s-labour-party-despite-n781621

Just labour Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:23 AM

Guardian,
"Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem "
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn

Just Labour Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:43 AM

(Oh God, this is fun...)

You're at it again, Keith. There is not a scintilla of doubt that you said that many prominent Labour members have said that Labour is more antisemitic than any other. You have tried to fudge around this. But you have FAILED to provide a single name of a prominent Labour member who has said specifically that Labour is MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER, let alone the many such names required in order to support your claim. Nothing to do with "serious antisemitism problems" or the fact that they didn't also happen to mention other parties in the same breath, etc. (Why would they?) That is not what you claimed. You claimed that MANY PROMINENT MEMBERS SAID THAT LABOUR IS MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER..Now either you come up with a long list of names of those many prominent members who said that, with quotes pertaining to those remarks they are supposed to have made, or we will conclude that you are up to your usual trick of making things up and hoping we won't notice. It's a vulgar and fraudulent tactic, Keith. In fact, it's telling lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:51 AM

Dave, I am not asking you to discuss anything.
Just to clarify your views on Shah.

Why? What does it matter to you what I think about someone that neither of us even know? This is why I will not play your game. You have a hidden agenda that you will use to try to win your game. Whatever it is. I am no longer prepared to help you to play it. I have already given you the solution - You carry on believing that you have won. Easy.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 04:59 AM

Dave, Why not.

Steve,
FAILED to provide a single name of a prominent Labour member who has said specifically that Labour is MORE ANTISEMITIC THAN ANY OTHER,

I never claimed they said that specifically.
They have said that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism and not one of them has ever said that any other Party does.

Deny that?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM

Still no response to establishment paedopheile
Hypocritical as it gets
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:00 AM

Jim, who are you addressing?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 06:09 AM

Oh yes you did claim that they said that specifically. For the umpteenth time:

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 25 Jul 17 - 11:27 AM

Dave,
"The Labour party is no more antosemitic than any other"

That is your opinion, but many promininent members have said that it is.

Clear as a bell. You said exactly that. Bang to rights. But now you can't back it up and you're refusing to admit your inexactitude. No list of many prominent members, no quotes. You are compounding your lie. Your behaviour, as ever, is scurrilous, dishonest and thoroughly disreputable.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:11 AM

"Jim, who are you addressing?"
The feller who has attempted to link the Labour Party to paedophilia yet refuses to even acknowledge the establishment's long history in the practice
Who the hell else would I be addressing Keith?
If the cap fits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 07:30 AM

Incidentally
The two "antisemitism links you provide
One is over a year old - nothing has been proved since then and nothing new has emerged
It was about criticism of Israel and BDS then and it still is
The more up-to-date link refers only to there not being enough Jewish candidates
Unfortunate, but not explained and not antisemitic
You are still grasping at straws - you always have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:11 AM

"but many promininent members have said that it is (more anti-Semitic than any other)."

And they have, but not in so many words.

Having lost the actual debate you are again just desperately trying to get me on something, but all you can do is nit pick trivia.

OK.
I withdraw "but many promininent members have said that it is." and insert,
"but many promininent 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:15 AM

Jim,
"Jim, who are you addressing?"
The feller who has attempted to link the Labour Party to paedophilia yet refuses to even acknowledge the establishment's long history in the practice

Not me then.
I do not claim that any party has a particular problem with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 08:28 AM

Also only Labour Party Jews have complained about their party's anti-Semitism.
No Labour party Jew has ever described supposed antisemitism other than linking it to criticism of Israel - which is not antisemitic
And still yuo refuse to acknowledge establishment paedophilia
Point made, I think
You are a predatory hypocrite who ponces on the suffering of raped children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 09:13 AM

You "withdraw." Well that didn't take long, did it, Keith. Just a couple of days to wrestle out of you the fact that you made something up and hoped you'd get away with it. And you did not withdraw with good grace. You prattle on about my nitpicking and "losing." You are a ridiculous man. Finally, your replacement statement is just as stupid. Who are theses hordes of prominent members? And why would they rattle on about other parties when the debate was within their own party? We know that you and Teribus like to indulge in that schoolyard "he does it as well, Miss!" stuff, but the rest of us are a bit more grown up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:09 AM

From Keith's link:

There's a certain section of his supporters, not all of them, that really struggle to understand that you can be a Jew and in the party and also support Israel without being a supporter of the right wing," said Hannah, who asked that her name not be used for fear for her safety. "It's black and white to them. If you have any sympathy for Israel, they are triggered and can't control themselves."

Hannah said that since Corbyn became the Labour Party's leader in 2015, she has received "countless" anti-Semitic messages on social media, including a particularly distressing photo of a man with a knife in his back and the caption, "Serves him right, he trusted a k---," using racial slur for someone of Jewish descent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM

Hi Dave

<" Cheap shot, Mike and I know it is beneath you.

Yeah I must have been feeling a bit nasty that day.

Dianne has never been a favourite of mine but that was a bloe below the belt.

Glad to hear she has overcome her illness

regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 10:32 AM

Ah yes, boobs, the uncorroborated testimony of a single biased witness... prove that she wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:23 PM

Jim,
No Labour party Jew has ever described supposed anti-Semitism

Yes they have. (E.g. Ruth Smeeth)

And still yuo refuse to acknowledge establishment paedophilia

I do, but this thread is about UK politics.

You are a predatory hypocrite who ponces on the suffering of raped children

A filthy lying piece of personal abuse that you will never substantiate with anything like a quote.
Utterly despicable and totally unacceptable.
I have not accused any party of paedophilia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:30 PM

You "withdraw." Well that didn't take long, did it, Keith.

My replacement statement said exactly the same thing.
It is only Labour that has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.

That shows how pathetically trivial your objection to my wording was.
I have made the same point with words even you can not challenge!

Who are theses hordes of prominent members?

People like the Deputy Leader, the Mayor of London and the entire NEC.

And why would they rattle on about other parties when the debate was within their own party?

Of course they would make the case that other parties had the same problem, if only it was true.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:40 PM

"Not me then.
I do not claim that any party has a particular problem with it."
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 and gone on to make your facile accusations about Labour
"If you mean paedophilia, I don't either but the behaviour of those Labour councillors who kept it quiet was despicable."
Yes you Keith
You are incredibly stupid to put something up and deny it on the same thread, yet you do so constantly
Poncing off raped children, as you did with your "Muslim implants"
One real sicko
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:51 PM

Meanwhile on the Connemara another sessions beckons this evening. Last night we had banjo, mouthorgan, concertina, autoharp bodhran and several guitars, music from Ireland, England, Scotland and France, a great night. Tonight the landlord, a great bloke, will play guitar, mandolin,banjo, sings with a fantastic melodeon player, good business, what more could a man want?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 01:53 PM

That Guinness should have read guiñness!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 17 - 05:35 PM

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." If you seriously think that that means the same thing as "Labour has a serious antisemitism problem" then you clearly are having severe difficulty with the English language. The far simpler explanation, and the one I've come to prefer, is that you are an inveterate liar.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 06:34 AM

It must be tough having friends like that, Keith. I almost feel sorry for you but you know what they say. You reap what you sow.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 07:10 AM

Dave,
No-one else is afraid to say what they think, so why is it too dangerous for Dave?

If you are afraid to say what you think of Shah's comments, there is little point in reading what little you do have to say on the issues.

Ians is not my friend, and we have little in common except a contempt for the bullying tactics your little group uses to dominate all political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 07:24 AM

It is not at all dangerous. Just pointless as are most conversations with you Keith. You have obviously not read or taken notice of anything I have said for years so why are you so interested in my views on this one thing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:17 AM

Meanwhile, another glorious day out here on the Connemara, the hegderows are full of fuschia in bloom, montbretia abound in the verges and self-heal, leafy hawkweed, tufted vetch, purple loose strive, common February, common valerian and silverweed are just a few of the flowers in blossom. I,m puzzled by one though. It looks like creeping buttercup but has 4 petals not 5.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:19 AM

I'm claiming...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:21 AM

...post 3456, Liathach!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 11:22 AM

Will we make post 3560, Snowdon?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 12:21 PM

"the hegderows are full of fuschia in bloom, montbretia abound in the verges and self-heal, leafy hawkweed, tufted vetch, purple loose strive, common February, common valerian and silverweed are just a few of the flowers in blossom."
Roll On the 31st August when the flail cutters can come out in all their glory and tame the hedgerows again. This will make driving along narrow country roads marginally safer. Nice the nesting birds take precedence over the safety of humans.


https://www.npws.ie/news/hedge-cutting-notice-2016

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 12:24 PM

A simple solution . . . drive slower.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 12:35 PM

A simple solution. Very fitting from a simpleton. How many years before the road is totally hidden if hedge maintenance does not occur? I would guess about 5 years from boreens I have seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 Jul 17 - 01:16 PM

Do you really have to be so aggressive, if so I really pity you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 07:55 AM

Emollient laws, ethics laws and nepotism laws do not apply to Royalty.
Treason is a rather sticky wicket however.


I am unclear regarding the Royal Titles>
King Donald certainly but
Ivanka - Princess, Lady in waiting
Lady - Melania
Jared - Duke, Exchequer, Count, Viscount
Eric - Marquess
Donald Jr. - Earl
Baron - Baron

?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:25 AM

Dave,
why are you so interested in my views on this one thing?

Because you are so reluctant to tell us!

After all your evasions and nauseating coyness I am sure we are all agog to know what it is you are so desperate to hide.

We have all stated our views.
Don't be such a diddums Dave.
Man up and state your view, or go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 08:38 AM

For someone who hides behind "quotes" so often to say you have a çheek is a massive understatement

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:48 AM

If it is annoying you so much that I will not answer, Keith, all the more reason to keep schtum. I am not going anywhere.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:15 PM

Pathetic.
Here is my explanation.
You know very well that her comments were anti-Semitic and that she advocated transportation because she freely admits it.
You have to keep quiet about it because for over a year you have been supporting Jim and Steve while knowing them to be wrong and me right.

Your gang right or wrong, and never mind the truth.
Right Dave?

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

I'm not saying. You can make up any explanation you like if it makes you feel happier.

But you will never know the truth.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 04:29 PM

The REALLY amusing bit is that you told him the truth he wouldn't, believe you.

He,d probably call you a liar and/or a loser😀😆😘

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:11 AM

I do know the truth Dave.
If you agreed with Jim and Steve you would say so without hesitation.

You can not bring yourself to admit that I am right and they are wrong, but you know that to be the case.

Far from being annoyed I have hugely enjoyed your discomfort over this and the chance to take the piss.
How ridiculous you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:21 AM

Which just shows what you are reaaly like and what you really know doesn't it, Keith.

I thought you were getting on with the programme and just trying to convince yourself you have won something but there you go making a pillock of yourself again.

Tsk, tsk. Ah well, I did try.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:45 AM

Not just me Dave.
Anyone with half a brain would know what your problem was.

You could have dealt with it in one honest and soon forgotten post.
Instead you allowed me to drag out your discomfort for weeks.
What a chump.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:51 AM

Venezuela is in a sorry state.
Corbyn praised it as a shining example to the world.
What went wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:55 AM

Times today,
"Corbyn is under pressure from MPs and socialist politicians in Europe to condemn personally President Maduro's violent regime in Venezuela.
British MPs from all parties called last night for the Labour leader to speak out after his historical support for the state's leadership. "

Labour MP Angela Smith, "I hope that my party leadership will as soon as possible condemn what's happening in the country and call for the release of opposition party political prisoners," she said.
Graham Jones, another Labour MP and chairman of the group, said: "I believe everybody in the Labour Party should condemn the Venezuelan regime because the first duty of any state is to look after its citizens. Venezuela has failed."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-mps-urge-corbyn-to-condemn-venezuela-0r8nnsqf7

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:03 AM

No discomfort for me Keith but if it makes you feel better to believe that then I am glad to help. If you want other people to believe it then, in your own words, you will have to prove it or everyone will know it is just made up shit.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 08:08 AM

Iains - 31 Jul 17 - 06:09 AM

"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."

There hasn't been numerate in the Labour Party since it was formed. Their track record in Government has been consistently woeful.

On the Venezuela thing - I dare say to such as Corbyn and McDonnell Maduro's handling of Venezuela's economical and political problems is without fault - nothing must stand in the way of "socialist" ideology - the ruination of the country he was elected to govern must only be considered as merely a small price to pay along with the inevitable downward spiral. Corbyn and McDonnell would do the same to the UK in the blink of an eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 01:41 PM

Dave, it is binary.
You either agreed with Steve or me. She did or she didn't.

You never have any problem agreeing with Steve, but you could not bring yourself to say that he was wrong and I was right, and that is all this is.
Not rocket science.
Your denial just makes you look even more ridiculous.

It is not too late to tell us if you think Steve was right after all.
Do you think her comments including "The Jews are rallying" were not anti-Semitic even though she says they were.
Do you think she did not advocate transportation, even though she says she did.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 02:40 PM

Do shut up, Keith. And that piece of advice is an attempt to do you a favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 02:50 PM

A recent blast from the pasr. More labour lunacy!


http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/frederick-forsyth/831296/Britain-Conservatives-lunacy-concerns-Jeremy-Corbyn

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 03:10 PM

To be a labour MP and a lobbyist? His constituents must be very happy. I wonder who he truly represents?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/31/labour-mp-barry-sheerman-first-serving-politician-registered-lobbyist

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 06:43 PM

Keith. just carry on believing you have won. Stop posting and bask in the imagined glory. It will give you a warm feeling and the rest of us a break.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:16 AM

Won what Dave?
I have failed to persuade you to state your view, but at least I can explain why you will not.

If you thought Steve right you would say so at once.
You just can not bring yourself to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but that is the case.

He called me a liar over it, and you still kept quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:23 AM

Venezuela,
Labour MP John Mann, the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Antisemitism, said his party should "condemn the authoritarian regime".

He said: "The government has refused to protect the Jewish community there from anti-Semitic attacks and refused to meet me and other international politicians to discuss this.
"Venezuela is a despot regime…, leaving millions living in abject poverty and on the verge of starvation."

Asked about the Labour leadership's position, Mr Mann said: "It is time to revise our understanding of Venezuela and condemn unreservedly its current slide into violence, poverty and dictatorship."

Anyone here disagree with Mann>

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:43 AM

Yes, carry on believing that, Keith. I am sure it must be therapeutic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:01 AM

Of course you would support Steve if you thought he was right.
Belief does not come in to it.

So you know him to be wrong, but rather than admit it you obfuscate and evade for weeks, making yourselves both look totally ridiculous.

I did find that therapeutic Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:14 AM

Good. Glad you enjoyed it. I enjoyed doing my bit for care in the community as well. A win-win situation. So I guess we have finished?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:18 AM

You still will not said what you think.
That would finish it.

Venezuela anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:41 AM

Absolutely! Not the best version I have heard but more than acceptable

In Venezuela

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 07:02 AM

An old favourite of mine, but why do you avoid the real current issue of what is happening there now and Labour's stance on it?

And you still have not stated your view on the Shah debate.
Did she or didn't she?

Now two things your are afraid to discuss.
Say what you think or go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 07:22 AM

I have no idea what the situation is in Venuzeula and I am not privy to Naz Shah's personal thoughts. That is the reason I will not discuss them but I am more than happy to let you believe that it is because I am terrified of you if that makes yo happy.

I am going nowhere and will post what I like though. Because that makes me happy.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 07:27 AM

It's not about Shah's personal thoughts, it's about her public pronouncements, wriggler.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 07:42 AM

Of course it is, Poobad. because every politician in the world always says exactly what they mean and always tell the truth.

When Trump said he would build a wall paid for by Mexico, that is what happened.

When May said there would be no election until 2020 that is exactly what she meant.

When Shah said... Oh, I am sure you get the picture.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 08:09 AM

So, to follow wriggler's logic, a politician can make all kinds of racist comments but they can be disregarded because politicians always lie. Hmm, thankfully the majority of voters are somewhat more perspicacious than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 08:44 AM

Politicians do not always mean what they say. I know that may come as surprise to some but, sadly, it is true. Maybe the more perspicacious of us do realise that and understand that not everything is as it at first seems.

DtG

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

I just saw a lovely quote from someone on another thread. It said something like

it is not "anti-semitic" for someone to criticize everyday conservative Judaism generally and Judaic fundamentalism in particular. On the contrary, criticism is a prerequisite for any lasting reformation within Judaism.

I think it may have been about another religious group but I cannot remember who posted it...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 09:33 AM

I agree with that statement Dave, but advocating the transportation of Jews from the Middle East goes way beyond criticising "everyday conservative Judaism generally and Judaic fundamentalism in particular."

And Shah admits doing that.
Also of warning that "The Jews are rallying."

That is blatant and nasty racism, which you and Steve refuse to recognise.

This thread concerns UK politics, and Venezuela and Labour's position on it is a major news story right now.
If you have "no idea of the situation" do some reading.

If you have nothing to say on such issues why do you post here so much?
Go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 09:42 AM

If you have nothing to say on such issues why do you post here so much?
Why not?

Go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

I shall spend my time as I chose and go where I like thank you.

I can only suggest that you put your application in to be a forum moderator if controlling what other people say means so mush to you. In honesty though, I don't think you have much chance.

Sorry

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 09:48 AM

And sorry for the poor HTML but I am sure you get the gist.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 10:23 AM

Shah didn't propose the transportation of Judaism to the US it was the Jews she wanted to see gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 11:33 AM

No-one can make you go away Dave, but if you refuse to state your views on the topics under discussion what is the point of you being here and posting so prolifically?
You are wasting everyone's time, so why not go away?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 11:40 AM

K of H
The answer you are looking for is below. The royal we must refer to the former musket/s
Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 11 Mar 17 - 03:15 PM

Our diversions are childlike, not childish. We approach the glories of the natural world with wide-eyed wonder, God-free. The very epitome of what it is to be childlike. And we indulge in these diversions in the hope that they will severely piss people like you off, so that you may end up posting less, thus enhancing the possibility that the forum below the line will be a more pleasant and populous place that will live forever. If you do end up posting less, or, indeed, buggering off entirely, that will be your choice, no attack on free speech intended, etc. We live in hope. And there's nothing you can do to stop us. Free speech, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 12:48 PM

If you feel like my postings are a waste of time, Keith, there is a simple answer and one which I have been suggesting for ages. Ignore them. That way none of your time is wasted, you can carry on feeling victorious and I can carry on posting whatever I fancy.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 01:27 PM

Meanwhile out here on the Connemara there was a great session last night in a wonderful bar nestled by the harbour and another one tonight in the same village which is always a fantastic session

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 01:31 PM

Oh , and just a gentle reminder although I am sure most people will realise. The topic under discussion is the Labour party. The clue is in the thread name. Far from not stating my views on that and many sub topics therein I have made my views very well known. What I will not do, and this is what rankles you Keith, is play by your rules. I will not be sidetracked down a single pointless topic.

The Labour party, far from being the spent force you and your cronies have described, are on an upsurge. The leader that you and the right wing press have tried to destroy has survived everything that you can throw at him and succeeded in wiping out the Tory majority in the house of commons. All the talk of antisemitism and supporting terrorism has been nothing but a sideshow to the main event. Who will run the country at the next election. I know who I would bet on.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 01:34 PM

I'll see you in about 3 weeks, Raggy. Keep my pint cool in the Waiting Room and we can waste as much time as we like on good music, beer and company without anyone complaining :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 01:39 PM

Every party has its twats and Labour is no exception. John Mann is a contender for biggest Labour twat of all. No wonder Keith is clinging to him.

It's gorgeous where I am too. more on that later!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 01:49 PM

Yes Dave the thread is about Labour, and the most recent issues have been Labour MP Shah's anti-Semitism which you brought up again, and Labour's stance on Venezuela.

Yes, we could all ignore your pointless posts Dave, but why do you feel the need to impose yourself on everyone here when you refuse to say anything on the issues!?

If you will not express a view, please go away and stop wasting everyone's time

Or preferably give your views on whether or not Shah was being anti-Semitic, and Corbyn's stated admiration for Venezuela's disastrous regime.
Like an actual contributor Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 01:59 PM

Mann chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, and serves on the Treasury Select Committee.
You may not agree with him, but you can not dismiss him as just "a twat" without making a complete twat of yourself Steve.

Instead of just calling him names, can you answer any of the quotes I gave?

Labour MP John Mann, the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Antisemitism, said his party should "condemn the authoritarian regime".

He said: "The government has refused to protect the Jewish community there from anti-Semitic attacks and refused to meet me and other international politicians to discuss this.
"Venezuela is a despot regime…, leaving millions living in abject poverty and on the verge of starvation."

Asked about the Labour leadership's position, Mr Mann said: "It is time to revise our understanding of Venezuela and condemn unreservedly its current slide into violence, poverty and dictatorship."

Anyone here disagree with Mann?
Steve? What in particular Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 02:06 PM

I can keep saying no as long as you keep asking me to go away,Keith. Childish? Maybe but, while we are on that ptopic, who started it?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 02:12 PM

More labour idiocy:


https://order-order.com/2017/08/03/top-corbynistas-smart-benches-ripped/

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:12 PM

You know when Musket used to call you a thick cunt, Keith? He was wrong. I don't think you are as thick as you act.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:51 PM

Wrinkled little gnome. Thought for the day:

" Profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 05:52 PM

Then again, maybe he was right.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 17 - 06:38 PM

John Mann has done everything in his power to undermine Jeremy Corbyn. Just like Keith and booboo, he has a bee in his bonnet about "Labour's serious antisemitism problem." In fact, he's completely obsessed with it. He dishonestly orchestrated the public spat with Ken Livingstone in front of prearranged TV cameras. He hates Jezza and is one of those sore losers, like Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn and Chuka Umunna, who can't stand the fact that Jezza did so well and sidelined them via positive campaigning. They need to evaporate rapidly. Labour has changed direction and become a party of fair play, less bloody stupid tactics and of more positive campaigning. Those has-beens can't stand it, and the likes of Keith, Iains and booboo are so worried that they are resorting to the very tactics that lost our Theresa her majority. All negativity and not a bloody policy in sight. That's Toryism for you. And look where it's got us in the last seven years. Poor man of Europe all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 03:07 AM

Inanes - It was not my profanity, it was the phrase that Musket used to use so, if your tired little platitude was aimed at me, you have missed the mark yet again.

And I do wish you lot would get your act together. Teribus says 'fat little Gnome' you say 'wrinkled little Gnome'. Have you any idea how difficult it is to fat and wrinkled? I do try to please but I am not a miracle worker!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 04:29 AM

D the G was not musket something you hid behind? Shaw certainly did. His unique turn of phrase can be recognised at a thousand paces.
Perhaps you could tell us what other alias you were using that particular day?

Anyway to more pressing matters.
Will He? Wont he?
Labour MP Graham Jones is optimistic Corbyn will come out and condemn Maduro:

    "Jeremy in his own time will come out and condemn Venezuela, I am sure he will. Nobody can accept the human rights abuses that are going on in Venezuela."

The more hawkish Labour types are demanding Corbyn answer a very simple question: Does Jeremy Corbyn still support Venezuela's regime?

Progress's Conor Pope says "I do happen to believe what Corbyn thinks about Venezuela now is relevant and important, but not because of votes. Judgement and morals. Corbyn held up Chavismo as a model. Fair to ask where went wrong." Socialism comrade, socialism went wrong as it always does…

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 04:49 AM

D the G was not musket something you hid behind?

No it was not. I have never hidden behind anything. I am too wide for a start...

Shaw certainly did.

I am sure Steve can and will speak for himself but he certainly did not either.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 04:51 AM

Steve, you have failed to say specifically what you disagree with in those quotes.
Here they are again.
Labour MP John Mann, the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Antisemitism, said his party should "condemn the authoritarian regime".

He said: "The government has refused to protect the Jewish community there from anti-Semitic attacks and refused to meet me and other international politicians to discuss this.
"Venezuela is a despot regime…, leaving millions living in abject poverty and on the verge of starvation."

Asked about the Labour leadership's position, Mr Mann said: "It is time to revise our understanding of Venezuela and condemn unreservedly its current slide into violence, poverty and dictatorship."

Anyone here disagree with Mann?
Steve? What in particular Steve?

And not just Mann.
Times,
"Corbyn is under pressure from MPs and socialist politicians in Europe to condemn personally President Maduro's violent regime in Venezuela.
British MPs from all parties called last night for the Labour leader to speak out after his historical support for the state's leadership. "

Labour MP Angela Smith, "I hope that my party leadership will as soon as possible condemn what's happening in the country and call for the release of opposition party political prisoners," she said.
Graham Jones, another Labour MP and chairman of the group, said: "I believe everybody in the Labour Party should condemn the Venezuelan regime because the first duty of any state is to look after its citizens. Venezuela has failed."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 04:57 AM

Dave,
I can keep saying no as long as you keep asking me to go away,Keith.

I actually ask you to comment on the issues.
If you can't or won't then your profligate posting is an irrelevant nuisance to everyone, so of course you should stop.

Why do you impose yourself on us, just prattling on about anything except the issue?
What give you the right?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:00 AM

Perhaps you could tell us what other alias you were using that particular day?

I have always posted as myself. Never anyone else and never as a guest apart form a handful of occasions where my cookie had crumbled. Unlike you who did not post as yourself between August 2000 and April 2016. Maybe you would care to let us know which guests you were posing at during that period?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:09 AM

What give you the right?

God. Take it up with him or Mudcat management.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:13 AM

Well, Keith, your party supported the Pinochet regime and supported Reagan when he was up to his tricks in Central America. I smell hypocrisy. Again. You and Iains are a pair of sick obsessives who are on a two-man mission here to dig whatever dirt you can on Labour. It really isn't very interesting. I repeat. The approach lost you your majority in the June election. People want to know what you're going to do, not how bad the other lot are who haven't been in power for over seven years. But get as many recruits as you can for your little campaign. That's the way we'll get Jezza into Number Ten!

By the way, Iains, I'll thank you for not trying to smear me by implying that I was Musket. Of all the people on this board, no-one is more open, consistent and transparent about their identity than I've been over ten years. Just the one identity, I might add. Go and take your desperate slurs elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:14 AM

You have no God given right to swamp Mudcat threads with irrelevant and personal ramblings.

Who do you think you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:17 AM

Who do you think you are?

I don't think I am anyone. I know I am Dave the Gnome. Do you have some issues with self awareness? Is this why you are so insecure that you feel the need to win at all costs?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

Well, Keith, your party supported the Pinochet regime and supported Reagan when he was up to his tricks in Central America.

My party? I have none. The only hypocrisy is yours.
I have quoted three Labour MPs, and you have no reply.

Your post is just personal abuse and not one word on the issue of Venezuela.
You clearly have nothing to say.
No case.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:22 AM

Dave,
I don't think I am anyone. I know I am Dave the Gnome.

You think you are someone who has a God given rights to mess up serious threads with irrelevant prattling.
You just said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:55 AM

You think you are someone who has a God given rights

don't be a prat. You know very well I don't believe in god. Mudcat management do exist though and they decide on the rules. Not you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 07:06 AM

So what does give you the right to mess up serious threads with irrelevant prattling, and why did you bring God into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 07:48 AM

Serious threads?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Now please excuse me while I go an throw up.


:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 08:18 AM

Get a grip, Dave. You missed out a couple of letters Let me put it right.



Ahem...



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 09:13 AM

But for the antics of you two, it could have continued to be a serious thread.
I have only made serious points, and backed them with serious quotes from prominent Labour Party people.

You people were unable to reply and so have tried to disrupt the thread.

You dominate all political threads here, and when you can't you just disrupt them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 09:41 AM

But it is not a political thread. It is a thread just to abuse the Labour party. The only things that you and your cronies have posted on here are negative views of Corbyn or anyone who supports him. Any attempt to support him or the party or any mention of the countless faults of the Tories are met with sneers and ridicule.

Yet even though you have tried your hardest the reputation of the Labour party and Corbyn have gone from strength to strength to the extent that they have wiped out the Tory majority. You all predicted otherwise and cannot stand it because you have been proved wrong so you resort to posting on forum that has so few rules that you get away with all sorts of things that you would have been banned from doing on a serious site.

People have seen through you. they know that serious discussion is an impossibility with you as all you want to do is 'win'. Well, as I keep saying, go ahead. Feel free to keep saying you win if it makes you happy. No skin off my nose and I know that everyone bar a handful can see what is really happening.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 09:47 AM

It,s a glorious day here on the Connemara, more music beckons tonight!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 09:57 AM

I'll tell you tomorrow what's it's like where I am. I can't tell you that the beer's good...and the bar's open...plenty of socialists too...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 09:58 AM

I meant that I CAN tell you that the beer's good!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 10:15 AM

Sister is arriving for a visit tonight and she is from Burton on Trent so I have better make sure our Yorkshire beer is at it's best! I think they are stopping for the weekend but will be a bit late. They were going to come up in the same car Moses came down the mountain in (you can work it out :-) ) but it broke down so they had to go back and collect the Ford. Off to Haworth tomorrow and not quite sure what else but Mrs has just phoned to ask if I will pick up another bottle of wine.

Sounds promising...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 03:00 PM

But it is not a political thread. It is a thread just to abuse the Labour party.

No it is not.
It is a thread where views can be expressed, or should be.
You people just do not want any views expressed that you don't like.

Nothing prevents you from expressing your views, you are just incapable of doing so.

I have made a critical case and backed it with numerous quotes from numerous prominent Labour people and even the leadership.
Sadly you are all incapable of formulating any kind of reply or finding anything to substantiate your vacuous assertions.

So you try to wreck it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 05:06 PM

Not so. I have repeatedly expressed the view that your party supported Pinochet, supported Reagan when he was backing bastards in central America, called for a completely unnecessary referendum that is rapidly wrecking this country, has a prime minister who told us us one thing then did another and utterly screwed up, had a previous leader who exulted in sticking his dick into a dead pig's mouth and which ran parties which exploited underage boys for sex. That's your lot, Keith. But not a word from you about any of that. You are a hypocrite and a bigot.

Of course, you will tell us that it isn't your party. But hang on, what's that I hear? Why, it's the cock crowing for the third time...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 06:45 PM

Nothing prevents you from expressing your views, you are just incapable of doing so.

My view is that you are a complete prat and that you are incapable of accepting that. I suspect that you will tell me that this does not count.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 02:20 AM

"Supported" Shaw?? IIRC during the Falklands I believe that Pinochet assisted us.

I believe that every government of the UK has "supported" every US President and administration since the end of the Second World War. In what way did the UK "support" US meddling in Central America? Our only involvement in the region was focused in guaranteeing the freedom and independence of a place called Belize.

The "unnecessary referendum" you referred to was originally promised the electorate of the UK by a Labour Prime Minister - Gordon Brown.

The last election? It was a shambles from the Tory POV, but having said that we still DO HAVE a Tory Government that will see Brexit delivered. The Labour vote and their empty and ill-thought-out manifesto are constantly being revealed for exactly what any sentient human being would recognise - all hot air, totally impracticable and financially suicidal.

Dare say you did some bloody stupid things in your youth Shaw.

As far as the Conservative Party having "ran parties which exploited underage boys for sex" Shaw. I take it that you can provide details of those arrested, tried and convicted of these activities that you claim happened? Or are trials and convictions imminent? You see as far as I am aware no such charges have ever been levelled.

Also as far as I know - you are a member of a political party, you have stated so often enough in support of your pal Corbyn - neither Keith A, or myself are members of any political party and this you have been told repeatedly (UK electorate numbers some 46,500,001 voters - Total UK membership of political parties numbers less than 1,200,000 if you are lucky).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 04:10 AM

"and which ran parties which exploited underage boys for sex." Poor Shaw.
The dear boy is completely losing the plot. As he has an obsession to dominate every thread like a rather nasty rash he is now reduced to making the most ridiculous claims.

Meanwhile if we step out of young stevie's fantasy world back into reality here is another little labour gem for him to sink his rabid, ferrety teeth into:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/newsnight-encounter-corbynista-revealed-true-hypocrisy-labours/

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

steve,
That's your lot, Keith. But not a word from you about any of that.

They are not my lot or my party.
Not a word because I do not defend any of it.

Dave,
My view is that you are a complete prat and that you are incapable of accepting that.

When you resort to name calling, we know you have nothing else to contribute. It is equivalent to a white flag.
The Guardian must all be prats too, because they published this yesterday,

"Labour's shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, has said Venezuela's government has a duty to answer concerns about Nicolás Maduro's "increasingly authoritarian rule", as pressure mounted on Jeremy Corbyn to speak out.
The party leader was a longtime admirer of Venezuela under its late socialist leader Hugo Chávez, saying in 2013 he was "an inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics in Europe".
"Corbyn has also previously given his backing to Maduro, Chávez's successor. In 2014, he rang to congratulate the new president live on a Venezuelan television channel, where Maduro introduced the Labour leader as a "friend of Venezuela". "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/labour-concerns-on-venezuela-raise-pressure-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-speak-out

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 06:26 AM

Hi

<" prime minister who told us us one thing then did another">

Thought that was in the DNA of all Prime ministers and politicians.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 12:22 PM

Meanwhile on the Connemara, great music last night. Two young lads, one on guitar one on flute/whistle played the early session followed by my mate on guitar with melodeon backing. I added a few songs with my good lady and a mate over from England added a few. I think we left the bar before 2, I think!!😁😋😄

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 12:58 PM

Steve, re your accusations against Tories.
The pig story was unsubstantiated.
Lord Ashcroft who started it did not claim to have seen it.
Cameron denied it.
Cameron was never even a member of the society whose initiation ritual it was supposed to be.
It never happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

Your story about paedophile parties is just a lie.
Made up shit Steve.

We now have four Labour MPs including the Shadow Foreign Secretary demanding Corbyn say something about Venezuela.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 01:01 PM

Of course he denied it. Do you really think he would do otherwise!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 01:06 PM

He could not deny it if there was actual evidence that it was true.
That would prove him a liar and force his resignation.
There is no evidence at all that it ever happened.
It is entirely unsubstantiated and no-one claims to have witnessed it, so why should we take it seriously Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 04:07 PM

Apologies all. Could not resist the temptation.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/you-wanna-cut-down-on-your-porklife-dave?utm_term=.pok1J3jmy#.llDQxn2Zk

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 04:12 PM

He could not deny it if there was actual evidence that it was true.
That would prove him a liar and force his resignation.

What, like there being evidence that Theresa May said there would not be an election until 2020? I guess that the election this year did not prove her a liar which is why she did not resign?

As to the white flag comment. Well, yes, you have won yet again. Well done. Keep it up and you will get over whatever the issues are...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 05:20 PM

"like there being evidence that Theresa May said there would not be an election until 2020? I guess that the election this year did not prove her a liar which is why she did not resign?"

Are you really that childishly idiotic Gnome?

Politicians constantly change their minds, just like the rest of the human race and guess what chubs - IT IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED.

If you want to set out lists of political promises broken the thread would be longer than the TMOABS Thread. Here's one to get you going:

Gordon Brown promised the electorate of the UK a referendum on EU Membership. We didn't get one, at the tie Gnome I didn't hear you clamouring for his resignation. But of course one law for the goose another for the gander with your lot isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 05:24 PM

Absolutely, Teribus. That is what I am getting at. The point you seem to have missed is that your mate Keith reckons that because Cameron denied the pig story he must be telling the truth. Because politicians always tell the truth like you have just pointed out...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 05:53 PM

He could not deny it if there was actual evidence that it was true.

Obvoiously The Professor is a top advisor to Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 05:59 PM

Gordon Brown "promising" a referendum when he was LABOUR prime minister has got rock all to do with the TORIES holding a referendum years later. The referendum was an entirely Tory idea, foisted on us by Cameron because he was scared shitless of UKIP nicking Tory seats in 2015 and of the long knives of his own right-wing eurosceptic faction (the same lot who forced May into an election in the vain hope she could shrug them off and the same lot who are going to see her off very shortly). Tories never do things in the national interest. They do things in the Tory interest, and just look at the bloody mess they've got us into. I'll tell you what, Teribus. You've already cut down the amount of triumphalist trumpeting you do about brexit (don't think we haven't noticed). I'll give it six months before you finally end up maintaining an extremely embarrassed silence about it. This country is stuffed, and you know it. Unless brexit never happens, of course, a distinct and increasing possibility. We're already talking about a three-year transitional Tory fudge. And we haven't even started yet.

As for those Tory underage gay sex parties, just google "Thatcher senior ministers underage Tory sex parties." I'm a bit shit at doing links, but google that and you'll have a merry all-night read on your hands. Gosh, there was even talk of one poor lad being murdered by a minister...don't forget to read all about the cover-ups. The Tories are good at that!

As for his denial of the pig 'n' cock (hey, great possible pub name), well aren't we all just reminded of a certain president and his "I did not have sex with that woman..." 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 06:32 PM

Ah but Steve, Clinton couldn't hold a candle to the current incumbent. Give credit where due, man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 17 - 06:57 PM

Oh, I do, Greg. But at least Bill had the good taste to be fellated by a living human being as opposed to a dead pig! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 04:03 AM

Dave the Gnome - 05 Aug 17 - 05:24 PM

"The point you seem to have missed is that your mate Keith reckons that because Cameron denied the pig story he must be telling the truth."

No not quite Gnome, one of your typical deliberate misrepresentations there my little ex-Union activist.

Here is what Keith A actually did state:

Keith A of Hertford - 05 Aug 17 - 12:58 PM

Steve, re your accusations against Tories. The pig story was unsubstantiated. Lord Ashcroft who started it did not claim to have seen it. Cameron denied it. Cameron was never even a member of the society whose initiation ritual it was supposed to be.

ALL of the above leads Keith A to then state - "It never happened." - he even provided a link showing where he got his information from - so NOT simply a case of Cameron denying it eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 04:08 AM

Keith has a history of saying that things never happened. Usually saying that things he said in black and white in threads were never said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:19 AM

I did not do that

We will not have an election

Spot the Tory lie.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:33 AM

Now let us look at the following twaddle from Shaw:

Steve Shaw - 05 Aug 17 - 05:59 PM

1: Gordon Brown "promising" a referendum when he was LABOUR prime minister has got rock all to do with the TORIES holding a referendum years later".

Complete and utter bollocks Shaw the seed of an "In" or "Out" referendum was firmly planted by "Labour" under Gordon Brown - something to do with a rather strong voter reaction against the 448 Article Treaty of Lisbon. The same treaty that was rejected by ~55% of the French electorate in May 2005 and by ~62% of the Dutch electorate in June 2005. The Irish then rejected a modified version in 2008. Great pity that Gordon of Cartoon didn't hold his promised referendum to let the electorate of the UK have their say - instead he said we didn't need to hold one because other countries within the EU had already vetoed it. The EU Commission that unelected and unaccountable executive that runs the EU then did a fudge and on a technicality managed to massage the drastically amended Treaty (Now only one-fifth of the size in verbiage with only 70 articles) through WITHOUT it having to be unanimously agreed to by the EU Council of Ministers. It was the failure to honour the promise of the referendum that spurred the growth of UKIP.

2: The referendum was an entirely Tory idea, foisted on us by Cameron because he was scared shitless of UKIP nicking Tory seats in 2015 and of the long knives of his own right-wing eurosceptic faction (the same lot who forced May into an election in the vain hope she could shrug them off and the same lot who are going to see her off very shortly).

Again complete and utter bollocks Shaw. The referendum was originally Labour's idea. When the electorate did not get their promised referendum on the EU Cameron and the Conservatives promised to hold one IF they won the 2010 General Election. They did not win a majority and had to form a coalition Government. Part of the bargaining done to establish that coalition with the Lib-Dems was that the referendum had to be ditched - Cameron and the Conservatives were hammered for reneging on their promise. When the 2015 General Election came round the promise of a referendum was reintroduced, the Conservatives won this election outright and a referendum was duly held and the electorate of the UK voted LEAVE.

3: "Tories never do things in the national interest. They do things in the Tory interest, and just look at the bloody mess they've got us into."

More Shaw bollocks. Through the course of history related to Governments of Great Britain I can point to a number of occasions where Tory Prime Ministers have crashed their Governments so that the electorate could decide on the issues at hand via General Elections. There have been no such sacrifices made by any Labour Party in power.

What mess have they got us into? What has become of all the dire "doom'n'gloom" predictions of the "Remoaners"? In the last eighteen months the value of my portfolio of shares and equities has risen by 22.26% which is probably why I have "cut down the amount of triumphalist trumpeting you do about brexit (don't think we haven't noticed)." - Instead of Trumpeting I've been laughing all the way to the bank. Our economy is still rock solid and outperforming that of the Eurozone. The comments coming from German politicians are already beginning to effect the German economy and German businesses, particularly their car manufacturers who are starting to hurt and can see increasing pain on the horizon - they will tell Merkel, or whoever ends up as Chancellor of Germany, what the cost of "punishing" the UK for having the temerity to exercise it's right to leave the EU will be for Germany.

4: "I'll give it six months before you finally end up maintaining an extremely embarrassed silence about it."

This will turn out as true as all your other predictions regarding me. Remember I was supposed to have been driven from this forum months ago according to you - Hiya Stevie!!!! I'm still here, so is Keith A.

5: "This country is stuffed, and you know it."

Certainly is if Corbyn ever gets into power.

6: More Shaw nonsense regarding Brexit; "Unless brexit never happens, of course, a distinct and increasing possibility."

Brexit dear Shaw is a racing certainty - according to EU protocol and procedure - Article 50 has been triggered THERE IS NO STOPPING IT. Please don't tell me that that is not the case tell the EU Commission.

BY the 19th March 2019 the UK will be out of the EU according to EU rules and articles - all the rest, the "fudge" as you call it, still has to be agreed - and it will not be a Tory "fudge" Shaw as the EU Commission and the 27 members will have THEIR say in it.

7: As for the Tory underage sex parties? Google all you want Shaw - Track record shows:

- NOT A SINGLE ARREST
- NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION
- NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY ALLEGATION

Tell you what Shaw - ever thought of talking about things that HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:40 AM

5: "This country is stuffed, and you know it."

Certainly is if Corbyn ever gets into power.

Followed by

ever thought of talking about things that HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

You really couldn't make this stuff up could you.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:49 AM

The country is far from stuffed Gnome - if so please state why YOU think it is - I merely stated what I THOUGHT the case would be IF Corbyn ever made it to No 10. That by the way Gnome is expressing an opinion which I am entitled to do.

Shaw on the other hand is stating as fact that certain things have happened when they have not.

On the pig thing - even Corbyn, at the time, openly criticised and condemned the media over it's coverage of the so-called "piggate affair".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 07:27 AM

Excuse me one moment:

"This will turn out as true as all your other predictions regarding me. Remember I was supposed to have been driven from this forum months ago according to you - Hiya Stevie!!!! I'm still here, so is Keith A."

Please tell me when I predicted any such thing. "All my other predictions regarding you" suggests that I go around predicting things about you all the time. Chapter and verse on that one, please.

How nice for you that your "portfolio" (told you he was a Tory!) is doing so well. Typical Tory: I'm doing just great, sod everyone else. Perfect.   I expect that your portfolio is doing a lot better than the portfolios of five million "self-employed," mostly people forced into that position against their will, thousands of young people on half the minimum wage on bogus apprenticeships, aka tea makers and floor sweepers, a million on zero-hours contracts, thousands more who lose pay for daring to go to the toilet or arrive five minutes late and who can stop work for a few minutes every six hours. Our economy is among the weakest performers in the EU. The pound is almost at parity with the euro after being above €1.40 eighteen months ago. This is fuelling inflation that employers can't meet with appropriate pay rises, a time bomb of Cameron's making. Growth is staggering to a halt and productivity can't get off the floor, in spite of these millions of extra people allegedly "in work." Explain that one away. I've mentioned this a number of times before and all we get from you is silence.

As for your referendum, please tell me when a government of opposite colour has ever been bound by the unfulfilled, abandoned promise made by a predecessor. Cameron made his own promises, sod all to do with Gordon Brown, not bound in the slightest way by what Gordon had said but not done. To suggest otherwise is utterly ridiculous. He was running scared of UKIP and he was running scared of his own vicious backwoodsmen (sorry, John). The trouble is that you'd rather construct elaborate retrospective fantasy scenarios than do that much simpler thing, face the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 08:07 AM

Read all about it!

The trip to the promised land- very lucky we missed the bus and the waters did not part!


http://www.frombearcreek.com/rule-five-labour-lunacy-friday/

According to Shaw Joe average may not know what halal means but the electorate certainly recognise batsh*t crazy at the election.
Cameron may be falsely accused of distressing one part of a pig's anatomy but we know for a fact that Corbyn would do a serious number on a pig's ear when it comes to the economy. Doncha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 08:14 AM

Iains is having an I'm-going-to-post-only-silly-things Sunday. Why don't you put that piece of searing wit in the joke thread, Iains? Put yourself in there while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 08:25 AM

Further porcine thoughts to try widen the discussion.

It has been reported that the Tories have several times managed to make silk purses out of pig's ears.

This is due to their successful recovery techniques applied to the economy after several periods of Labour misrule.

Reputable sources claim pigs may fly before Labour is fit to govern!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 08:26 AM

Silly Billy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 11:32 AM

Ah Shaw the great believer in stereotypes, hidebound as he is by the ideology of the "left".

"How nice for you that your "portfolio" (told you he was a Tory!) is doing so well."

Ehmmm Shaw hate to point this out to you but:

One of the biggest investors in the Stock Market in their day was the NUM - were they Tories Shaw?

George Soros champion of the left also has rather a large investment portfolio - Is he a Tory Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 11:47 AM

"Our economy is among the weakest performers in the EU."

Really Shaw? I suppose that depends on which reporting period you wish to cherry-pick. However the following remains true:

"Since 2008, UK GDP is 11 per cent higher, compared to 6 per cent higher in the eurozone.

The eurozone's current period of strong growth is thought to reflect a cyclical bounceback, also helped by the European Central Bank's ongoing monetary stimulus programme.

The single currency zone has now seen 17 successive quarters of growth.

The unemployment rate in the eurozone currently stands at 9.1 per cent, down from 12 per cent in 2013, but still double the UK's current rate of 4.5 per cent."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 12:16 PM

I'll try again

Certainly is if Corbyn ever gets into power.

Followed by

ever thought of talking about things that HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

And not a hint of irony.

Tell you what Tezzer. As far as entertainment goes you are pretty good value.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 12:23 PM

Dave,
What, like there being evidence that Theresa May said there would not be an election until 2020?

She changed her mind.
That does not make her a liar.
If she claimed something did not happen when really it did, she would have to resign for lying.

Steve,
The referendum was an entirely Tory idea, foisted on us by Cameron because he was scared shitless of UKIP nicking Tory seats

No. Labour and the Lib Dems also promised an in/out referendum.

just reminded of a certain president and his "I did not have sex with that woman..."

What happened when he was revealed to be a liar?

Re. piggate, no-one claims to have witnessed it, there is no evidence for it at all, and he did not even belong to that society.
It never happened.
Likewise the paedophile parties, or will you provide evidence to the authorities so that charges can be brought?
They never happened.
You resort to making up shit.

I have made nothing up. I just quote what senior Labour people have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 12:25 PM

I love this one as well.

One of the biggest investors in the Stock Market in their day was the NUM

Probably why Thather went all out to destroy them I suppose. Can't have oiks getting above their station. Not sure about oinks...


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 12:35 PM

Another symptom is believing they are being perfectly reasonable and rational. The picture is getting clearer by the minute...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 12:36 PM

Sorry - Wrong thread. Maybe saying daft things without realising it is catching...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 12:43 PM

Heheh, nice one, Dave.

Since the referendum, Teribus, since the referendum. The country has gone down the pan in respect of the measures I indicated since then.

It doesn't matter what Labour or the LibDems said that they would do if they were in charge. They were not put in charge, and the Tories were not obliged to carry out things that parties who failed to get in charge said that they'd do if they got in charge. Why, by that measure, Keith, since Labour said they would repeal anti-union legislation, well I suppose the Tories had better get on and do it...😂 In other words, the pair of you, stop being so daft.

As for those sex parties which you are so certain never took place, in spite of a sane and honest witness having been present who was later "sidelined," isn't it amazing how you dismiss evidence that doesn't suit you yet you cling on to every little negative snippet about Corbyn that we're all sick of you repeatedly telling us about. "Don't mention antisemitism - Keith mentioned it a thousand times but he thinks he got away with it..." (with apologies to Basil Fawlty)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 01:23 PM

This is what happens when you run out of fingers and toes.


https://video.fdub2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-2/18312038_1913145035589565_5977293182545690624_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN

Croosword clue: 7 letters, means au fait with numbers. Starts with N
Could never apply to a labour government.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 01:26 PM

Steve, Labour is also supporting Brexit and leaving the Customs Union.

It doesn't matter what Labour or the LibDems said that they would do if they were in charge.

You can not claim it was just the Tories who wanted a referendum. Labour did too. And Lib Dems.

isn't it amazing how you dismiss evidence that doesn't suit you

I have not dismissed any evidence at all!
I just pointed out the absence of any scrap of it!

yet you cling on to every little negative snippet about Corbyn that we're all sick of you repeatedly telling us about.

I just repeat what Labour people themselves have said about him.

Anti-Semitism is more than just a "little negative snippet" and so is refusing to state his position on the regime in Venezuela.

According to senior Labour folk anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 02:09 PM

I am going to say something really, really controversial here. Just caught the last half hour of 'Dirty Dancing' and I think it is one of the best feel good films ever made.

There, I have said it now. Go to town.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:40 PM

Dave the Gnome - 06 Aug 17 - 12:36 PM

Sorry - Wrong thread. Maybe saying daft things without realising it is catching...

Please tell us Gnome - after all you've been doing precisely that for more than long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 17 - 05:47 PM

Missed Poldark last week due to being in Andalucía (as you know, Dave), so watched a double bill tonight. Idiotic but mighty and with great Kernow scenery. I don't care what anyone thinks. Blub.

And sod off, Keith. Get a hobby. It's never too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:12 AM

Tell you what, Tezzer?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:16 AM

This is my hobby Steve.

Four Labour MPs including the Shadow Foreign Sec. demand that Corbyn states his position on Venezuela.

Numerous prominent and senior Labour people and the entire NEC which includes the leadership say that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
They do not say that of any other party and only Labour Jews have reported anti-Semitism from their own party.

You deny that Shah made anti-Semitic comments or advocated ethnically cleansing Jews from Palestine, even though she admits both. Even Dave is not prepared to support you on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 09:02 AM

A great day of sport yesterday both Galway Minor and Senior hurling teams reached their All Ireland finals, the minors beating Kilkenny by one point, the seniors with a win over Tipperary by the same margin.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 11:01 AM

Any evidence for Tory paedo parties or Cameron and the pig?

Anything at all, or is it all just lies and made up shit?

I would never resort to shit like that.
Everything I have claimed was also claimed by senior and prominent Labour Party people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 12:40 PM

My response to all the negativity about the Labour party.

They have wiped out the Tory majority despite all the bad press. Corbyn has brought a breath of fresh air into politics and Labour will win the next election.

No more to be said really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 12:42 PM

I haven't said anything about "paedo parties." Just goes to show, Keith, just goes to show. You have a HISTORY of being FRAUDULENT and VULGAR when it comes to reporting what people have said. You never learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 02:23 PM

Steve,
I haven't said anything about "paedo parties."

Yes you have.
You said the Tories,
had a previous leader who exulted in sticking his dick into a dead pig's mouth (lie!) and which ran parties which exploited underage boys for sex.

Dave, the Tories have a reduced majority, but it has not been "wiped out."

How you two would set upon me if I made such careless "mistakes."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 02:40 PM

Hi Dave

<" Just caught the last half hour of 'Dirty Dancing">

Last year my good lady and I were in Llandudno. We noticed that Dirty Dancing was on at the Theatre there. Her indoors wanted to see it and persuaded me to take her. Needless to say that she won and we went...... < Whispering > I really enjoyed it !!! Must be getting old.   lol

Regards

Mike

I

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:06 PM

It is pretty good isn't it Mike. Glad it is not just me :-)

Watched 'the Sweeney' film the other day with Ray Winstone in the Jack Reagan role. Not a patch on the original series but it had its moments. I really liked that they had a car chase with the Sweeney in a suped up Ford Fiesta and the villain in an F type Jag - I suppose no one who watched the original would miss the significance :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:10 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Aug 17 - 12:42 PM

Bit rich that Shaw seeing as you are a proven liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:13 PM

Keith. No single party has enough seats for a majority, Hence the majority that the Tories used to have no longer exists. No longer exists = wiped out. Anything else is just spin and not worth pursuing.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 03:36 PM

Excuse me. There is a massive difference between paedophilia and abuse of post-pubertal but underage boys. Why don't you blokes apprise yourself of the difference? Why, even akenaton has shown that he knows the difference. All my posts refer to underage sex but never to paedophilia, which was not involved. What a pair of clowns. Jeri is dead right. We should ignore you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 07 Aug 17 - 05:36 PM

The definition of paedophilia is by no means clear cut.

Oxford English dictionary:Sexual feelings directed towards children.

merriam Webster:: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

The onset of puberty varies among individuals. Puberty usually occurs in girls between the ages of 10 and 14, while in boys it generally occurs later, between the ages of 12 and 16.

"There is a massive difference between paedophilia and abuse of post-pubertal but underage boys. Why don't you blokes apprise yourself of the difference?"

I see a problem already here! I recommend a study of the document
Definitions of Paedophilia - UWE Research Repository.(I am afraid my link kept failing when I tried to create it)

The definition of paedophilia varies depending on the dictionary used to define it, whether it is being used in a medical context, or in a legal context. It also varies by country.
It seems to me the inconsistancies that exist make any attempt to define the term rather meaningless. Sentencing generally seems more harsh as the victim becomes younger and the age of the perpetrator gets older. That to me is a far more critical result than using a word that means different things to different people of varying ages.
A prepubertal male could be any age from 12 to16 yet the UK and Ireland Paedophile database uses the following definitions:

    Infantophilia, or Nepiophilia, is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (usually ages 0–3)
    Paedophilia is used for individuals with a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger
    Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary sexual interest in 12-15 year old pubescents

Surely it is the crime that is the significant fact, not a name given to the perpetrator.

I admit I am totally confused and unable to obtain a consistent catchall descriptor for a paedofile

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

Well I'm sorry you went to all that pointless effort. Several things. I said underage, not paedophilia. If I'd meant paedophilia, I'd have said paedophilia. But I didn't. Finally, anyone googling what I suggested they googled about those Tory underage sex parties in the 80s would have instantly recognised that the thing was not about paedophilia. I find that quite interesting. It seems to betray the fact that you didn't bother with the googling. "Adverse stories about Tories simply can't be true - I don't even need to look it up!"

Er, yes you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:58 AM

So in short Shaw

1: You have absolutely no evidence at all to support your allegations. Having been given ample opportunity to provide some of this host of evidence you say exists - these turn out to be allegations, rumours and myths on examination - it therefore becomes simply more "Made-Up-Shit" from one of the "Usual Suspects".

2: No arrests, no convictions. (Any explanation for that Shaw?)

3: The Conservative Party per se, has never been investigated with regard to any underage sex scandal.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:48 AM

Shaw I suggest you read what I posted more closely.paedophilia:
"The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age."
Now depending on definition and situation that can mean any age up to 18 as puberty may not occur until age 16 for some males.

Now what were you saying?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:52 AM

No arrests, no convictions.

There have been no arrests and no convictions for racially aggravated crimes such as the antisemitism that some are being accused of but that does not seem to stop you from saying it is true. One law for you and your mates and one for everyone else Tezzer?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:13 AM

Not the case at all gnome as well you know. All along Keith A has gone to great length and great pains to point out repeatedly:

That the Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism is the opinion of Labour's NEC, prominent members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Jewish members of the Labour Party and a certain Labour MP Naz Shah who openly admitted, acknowledged and apologised publicly in the House of Commons for, through her own ignorance, for making anti-Semitic remarks - All of which Shaw, and obviously you yourself, refuse to acknowledge. Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for "bringing the Labour Party into disrepute" for his defence of Shah's remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:04 AM

You used the phrase 'No arrests, no convictions' to confirm that allegations were untrue. I am just doing the same.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:23 AM

Steve,
Excuse me. There is a massive difference between paedophilia and abuse of post-pubertal but underage boys.

You did not specify post pubertal boys Steve.
You just said "underage boys."

How old were the non-existent boys Steve, and how do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:30 AM

Dave, the anti-Semitism may not have warranted criminal charges but we do know that Shah, Livingstone and others made those comments.
There is no evidence at all that those underage sex parties or pig shagging ever happened at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:36 AM

Antisemitism is a crime in the UK. If it happened there would have been a criminal investigation followed by arrests and convictions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:23 AM

"Antisemitism is a crime in the UK. If it happened there would have been a criminal investigation followed by arrests and convictions."

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party share the view that language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism, and is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other form of racism."

Now gnome why did the suspension of Livingstone occur?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:33 AM

why did the suspension of Livingstone occur?

For bringing the party into disrepute as already stated by Tezzer in his post of 08 Aug 17 - 04:13 AM.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:00 AM

Hi Dave

<" It is pretty good isn't it Mike. Glad it is not just me :-)">

Yes and judging by the packed audience we are not alone.

Haven't seen any of the New Sweeny. Loved the old one though.

We are just watching some repeats of Death in Paradise. Corny but easy to watch and very funny in parts.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:27 AM

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party share the view that language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party have adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, see: IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism which is considerably broader than what you are trying to disingenuously portray, see: New Anti-Semitism from which I offer this excerpt for your edification:

New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far left, Islamism, and the far right, and that it tends to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The concept generally posits that much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.

But do go on pretending, it serves as a perfect example of the definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:39 AM

Yes gnome, a very cute response. Pray tell what were the reasons livingstone brought the party into disrepute? Disrepute simply cannot fall out of the sky- there are reasons for such findings. Let me refresh your memory.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ken-livingstone-suspension-labour-party-10158679

Not only do you appear to share the same party as livingstone but also the same inability to accept proven facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 07:53 AM

You asked why he was suspended. I responded. The fact is he was suspended for bringing the party into disrepute.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 08:24 AM

It may be YOUR definition, Boo - and the definition of those using it for political advantage- but its not THE definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:00 AM

Dave,
Antisemitism is a crime in the UK. If it happened there would have been a criminal investigation followed by arrests and convictions.

No. There is discretion. Shah admitted making anti-Semitic comments, but could not be accused of stirring up hatred.
"Antisemitism, as such, is not a criminal offence."
https://antisemitism.uk/law/introduction/


That stupid Tory woman was not arrested for using the most racist of all words.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:04 AM

Sorry to disappoint you Greg but it isn't my definition but that of the 31 countries that adopted it including yours and the UK, its police force and the UK Labour party which is what is relevant in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:18 AM

From the same Blog-O-Pedia article you quoted, Boo:

"Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.

Antony Lerman, writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in September 2008, argues that the concept of a "new antisemitism" has brought about "a revolutionary change in the discourse about anti-Semitism". He writes that most contemporary discussions concerning antisemitism have become focused on issues concerning Israel and Zionism, and that the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism has become for many a "new orthodoxy". He adds that this redefinition has often resulted in "Jews attacking other Jews for their alleged anti-Semitic anti-Zionism". While Lerman accepts that exposing alleged Jewish antisemitism is "legitimate in principle", he adds that the growing literature in this field "exceeds all reason"; the attacks are often vitriolic, and encompass views that are not inherently anti-Zionist.

Lerman argues that this redefinition has had unfortunate repercussions. He writes that serious scholarly research into contemporary antisemitism has become "virtually non-existent", and that the subject is now most frequently studied and analyzed by "people lacking any serious expertise in the subject, whose principal aim is to excoriate Jewish critics of Israel and to promote the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation. Lerman concludes that this redefinition has ultimately served to stifle legitimate discussion, and that it cannot create a basis on which to fight antisemitism."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:25 AM

Well greg that may be all very well but your little mate seems to rather heavily outnumbered on the world stage. This renders his opinions and scribblings somewhat worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 09:34 AM

but your little mate seems to rather heavily outnumbered on the world stage

Not so, Inanes. Do a little research before blindly adopting Boo's mantra.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 10:57 AM

Keith, one of the arguments given by Tezzer was that there were no arrests and no convictions. The point I am making is that that argument should be discounted for all the reasons you have just given. You have failed to grasp the point once again so there is no point in my trying to remake it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 11:40 AM

Greg. I always do my research! You must tell me what boo's mantra is. I am only familiar with the Vedic ones.


If you wish to reject a proposition, then to be taken seriously you need to offer some sort of argument to support your position.
Otherwise you are simply frothing and we already have a past master of that affectation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 11:58 AM

Greg. I always do my research!

Well then, Inanes, you'd best re-read the "Working Definition", this time for comprehension.

It says nothing about criticism of the State of Israel or of the Israeli government's actions being "antisemitic". In fact it clearly states the opposite.

And if you don't know what Boo's mantra is, you're the only one here that doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:37 PM

Dave,
The point I am making is that that argument should be discounted for all the reasons you have just given.

Yes, I grasped your "point" but is spurious.
There was no criminal offence to charge Labour's anti-Semites with, but there is for having sex with under-age children when it actually happens.

Anti-Semitism is a serious problem for the Labour Party, according to the Labour Party, but underage sex parties are not a problem for the Tories because there have not been any.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:48 PM

Greg,
It says nothing about criticism of the State of Israel or of the Israeli government's actions being "antisemitic".

Of course it does not, and no sensible person would claim that.
However, some statements about Israel are anti-Semitic, e.g. comaparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, as Jim has often done.
Here is an extract,

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

 Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 01:58 PM

What was the phrase about the sole purpose of your threads? To keep them going endlessly?

Enough is enough.

Just leave him to it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 02:15 PM

No worries, Dave - The Professor can rant on without any help from me.

Pretty soon Inanes will be in the same category.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:28 PM

4 skinned ferrets
Flour
Salt
Pepper
Butter
1 cup Sherry
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 can cream of chicken soup
1 can cream of celery soup
1 jar sliced mushrooms

Cover whole ferrets with flour, salt and pepper. Brown in melted butter in heavy skillet over medium-high heat until nicely browned on all sides. Remove pieces from skillet and arrange in oven casserole with cover. When ferrets are browned, add 1 cup white wine or sherry to skillet. Then mix in 1 can cream of mushroom soup, 1 can cream of chicken soup, 1 can cream of celery soup, and 1 jar sliced mushrooms. Mix well and bring to boil, then pour over ferrets. Cover and bake in 325-degree oven for 1 to 1 1/2 hours, or until done and tender. Remove ferrets to serving platter and pour some of the sauce over, and serve the rest alongside. Serves 4.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:42 PM

Awww c'mon now Gnome don't be so coy. If you are going to quote me quote the full sentence:

"Ken Livingstone still remains suspended from the Labour Party for "bringing the Labour Party into disrepute" for his defence of Shah's remarks."

The remarks being referred to here are those that Naz Shah says herself were anti-Semitic.

So Livingstone remains suspended from the Labour Party for his defence of anti-Semitic remarks.

What a pity those in Labour's NEC can't simply call a spade a spade.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 03:52 PM

Interesting recipe Iain's, I,be never eaten ferret although my wife's family used to farm them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 04:01 PM

Raggytash. I prefer them in a fricassee. There is a certain something about the action of chopping vermin into small pieces. It is very satisfying.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:03 PM

Lovely little creatures, ferrets. Wonderful characters and very intelligent. I am most surprised that someone who says he campaigns against cruelty to animals would suggest that they were vermin and provide recipes to cook them. Even as a jest it is in very poor taste. Still, I suppose that a parasitic worm that has no original thoughts of it's own and survives only off the droppings of its masters can not do any better really. I would not suggest cooking and eating it though. Could make you ill!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 05:34 PM

Its OK, Dave, they're not halal ferrets.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 17 - 06:27 PM

Been unavoidably distracted today, mainly by Besses junction/M60/M62/M6/M5/North Devon Link Road/A39. You bloody try it. My back's killing me. So I come back here to find this benighted thread going round in the same old negative circles. It's done its time. This thread is knackered. It's an ex-thread. Hey mods, let Keith crow that he's won. No-one cares. Shut the thing down. You'll never see what I'll buy you...

---

Closed. AND DON'T START ANOTHER ONE. This topic is totally exhausted. Capiche? --mudelf, speaking for many elves seconded by another elf