BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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: 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 - 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: Raggytash
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 05:57 AM

That should get some knickers twisted

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: 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 - 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:37 AM

Absolute bollocks.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:14 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.