To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=161452
1826 messages

BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

03 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM (#3836446)
Subject: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


03 Feb 17 - 06:38 AM (#3836450)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


03 Feb 17 - 06:45 AM (#3836452)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


03 Feb 17 - 07:17 AM (#3836453)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


03 Feb 17 - 07:52 AM (#3836458)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


03 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM (#3836461)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM (#3836470)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

'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.


03 Feb 17 - 09:00 AM (#3836471)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Feb 17 - 09:16 AM (#3836473)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Feb 17 - 09:25 AM (#3836474)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


03 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM (#3836475)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


03 Feb 17 - 09:48 AM (#3836476)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

all my computer says is

'RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II'


03 Feb 17 - 10:31 AM (#3836490)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


03 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM (#3836492)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


03 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM (#3836495)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


03 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM (#3836502)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: punkfolkrocker

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..


03 Feb 17 - 12:13 PM (#3836506)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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. 😜


03 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM (#3836510)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


03 Feb 17 - 12:40 PM (#3836512)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


03 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM (#3836513)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


03 Feb 17 - 12:54 PM (#3836517)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Feb 17 - 12:56 PM (#3836518)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


03 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM (#3836520)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


03 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM (#3836527)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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"


03 Feb 17 - 01:28 PM (#3836528)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM (#3836533)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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...


03 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM (#3836541)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


03 Feb 17 - 03:50 PM (#3836553)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


03 Feb 17 - 05:26 PM (#3836562)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Why, of course! 😂😂😂


03 Feb 17 - 06:48 PM (#3836574)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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


04 Feb 17 - 02:54 AM (#3836605)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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?


04 Feb 17 - 03:32 AM (#3836607)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

£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


04 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM (#3836618)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


04 Feb 17 - 05:23 AM (#3836621)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


04 Feb 17 - 05:26 AM (#3836625)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


04 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM (#3836626)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


04 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM (#3836635)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Well then Jom 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.


04 Feb 17 - 06:58 AM (#3836648)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Feb 17 - 07:20 AM (#3836654)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


04 Feb 17 - 08:05 AM (#3836665)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"Well then Jom 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


04 Feb 17 - 08:14 AM (#3836669)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


04 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM (#3836679)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


04 Feb 17 - 09:31 AM (#3836685)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


04 Feb 17 - 10:54 AM (#3836699)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


04 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM (#3836708)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

Repeat after me...

DON'T
FEED
THE
TROLLS


04 Feb 17 - 11:47 AM (#3836712)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

I agree Backwoodsman, Keith should stop feeding the trolls.


04 Feb 17 - 12:18 PM (#3836719)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Feb 17 - 12:28 PM (#3836722)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Feb 17 - 12:41 PM (#3836725)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


04 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM (#3836734)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


04 Feb 17 - 01:07 PM (#3836737)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM (#3836743)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


04 Feb 17 - 02:38 PM (#3836753)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


04 Feb 17 - 03:25 PM (#3836759)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


05 Feb 17 - 05:38 AM (#3836843)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


05 Feb 17 - 05:48 AM (#3836844)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


05 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM (#3836846)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

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


05 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM (#3836855)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Feb 17 - 08:02 AM (#3836873)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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

With apologies to Robert Charlebois.


05 Feb 17 - 09:19 AM (#3836880)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


05 Feb 17 - 09:29 AM (#3836882)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


05 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM (#3836888)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Feb 17 - 09:58 AM (#3836890)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


05 Feb 17 - 10:04 AM (#3836891)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...😜


05 Feb 17 - 10:10 AM (#3836893)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM (#3836894)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Only ewe can make the world go round

I know I'll never find another ewe

Any more?


05 Feb 17 - 10:16 AM (#3836895)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


05 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM (#3836896)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Hear about the sheep who got sunburned on holiday?


It had gone to the baaaa-hamas...


05 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM (#3836897)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Trolls!


05 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM (#3836902)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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??


05 Feb 17 - 11:14 AM (#3836904)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Troll!


05 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM (#3836912)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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

I think he probably went to Trondheim.

:D tG


05 Feb 17 - 11:36 AM (#3836913)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Little Sir Echo!


05 Feb 17 - 11:38 AM (#3836915)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


05 Feb 17 - 01:06 PM (#3836933)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

That's better.


05 Feb 17 - 01:09 PM (#3836934)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


05 Feb 17 - 01:10 PM (#3836936)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


05 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM (#3836937)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


05 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM (#3836938)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


05 Feb 17 - 02:24 PM (#3836946)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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??


05 Feb 17 - 04:02 PM (#3836957)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Feb 17 - 04:21 PM (#3836961)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


05 Feb 17 - 04:42 PM (#3836964)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Feb 17 - 05:43 PM (#3836978)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 03:12 AM (#3837017)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 04:15 AM (#3837021)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


06 Feb 17 - 04:28 AM (#3837022)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM (#3837026)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM (#3837027)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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/


06 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM (#3837029)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford


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


06 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM (#3837031)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM (#3837032)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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 :-)


06 Feb 17 - 06:18 AM (#3837047)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


06 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM (#3837053)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


06 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM (#3837054)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...?


06 Feb 17 - 07:12 AM (#3837060)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM (#3837063)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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 :-)


06 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM (#3837065)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


06 Feb 17 - 07:40 AM (#3837067)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 07:55 AM (#3837068)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


06 Feb 17 - 08:00 AM (#3837069)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


06 Feb 17 - 10:58 AM (#3837091)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

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.


06 Feb 17 - 11:40 AM (#3837100)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


06 Feb 17 - 11:56 AM (#3837103)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 12:01 PM (#3837104)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


06 Feb 17 - 12:02 PM (#3837105)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 12:06 PM (#3837106)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 12:15 PM (#3837107)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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.


06 Feb 17 - 12:16 PM (#3837108)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


06 Feb 17 - 12:40 PM (#3837113)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM (#3837114)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


06 Feb 17 - 12:59 PM (#3837116)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM (#3837119)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


06 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM (#3837121)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 01:31 PM (#3837122)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


06 Feb 17 - 01:36 PM (#3837123)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


06 Feb 17 - 01:38 PM (#3837124)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


06 Feb 17 - 01:41 PM (#3837125)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


06 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM (#3837126)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


06 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM (#3837129)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 01:52 PM (#3837130)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 01:54 PM (#3837131)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"The original thread bore"


Bwahahahaha!


06 Feb 17 - 01:58 PM (#3837134)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM (#3837135)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 02:03 PM (#3837136)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


06 Feb 17 - 03:23 PM (#3837152)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


06 Feb 17 - 03:43 PM (#3837155)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 04:02 PM (#3837158)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

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! 👍😎


06 Feb 17 - 04:12 PM (#3837160)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


06 Feb 17 - 04:18 PM (#3837161)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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 :-)


06 Feb 17 - 04:20 PM (#3837162)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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

:D tG


06 Feb 17 - 05:02 PM (#3837168)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

LOL! 😄


06 Feb 17 - 05:27 PM (#3837169)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Trolls!


06 Feb 17 - 05:40 PM (#3837172)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Strolls?


06 Feb 17 - 05:56 PM (#3837174)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

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


06 Feb 17 - 06:14 PM (#3837177)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...😂


06 Feb 17 - 06:29 PM (#3837180)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Good Soldier Schweik

I support Jeremy Corbyn.


06 Feb 17 - 06:31 PM (#3837181)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


06 Feb 17 - 06:46 PM (#3837186)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


06 Feb 17 - 06:53 PM (#3837187)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

It trolls for thee.


06 Feb 17 - 07:03 PM (#3837190)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 07:16 PM (#3837193)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Feb 17 - 08:00 PM (#3837200)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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


06 Feb 17 - 08:06 PM (#3837201)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


06 Feb 17 - 08:13 PM (#3837202)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


06 Feb 17 - 09:22 PM (#3837211)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


06 Feb 17 - 09:24 PM (#3837212)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"Anyone who ARE," dammit?


06 Feb 17 - 10:14 PM (#3837221)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


07 Feb 17 - 03:18 AM (#3837231)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM (#3837237)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM (#3837241)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 04:37 AM (#3837242)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 04:41 AM (#3837243)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM (#3837247)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


07 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM (#3837249)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu

Unbelievable. This whole fucking thread.


07 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM (#3837250)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM (#3837251)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


07 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM (#3837252)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM (#3837253)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM (#3837254)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:34 AM (#3837255)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Stu

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?


07 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM (#3837256)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:47 AM (#3837258)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM (#3837259)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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


07 Feb 17 - 05:53 AM (#3837260)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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. 😉


07 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM (#3837261)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM (#3837262)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM (#3837263)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 06:00 AM (#3837264)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM (#3837266)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM (#3837268)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM (#3837269)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 06:09 AM (#3837270)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:11 AM (#3837271)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:15 AM (#3837273)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 06:15 AM (#3837274)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:22 AM (#3837276)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:31 AM (#3837277)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:33 AM (#3837278)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM (#3837280)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


07 Feb 17 - 06:40 AM (#3837281)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 07:00 AM (#3837283)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM (#3837285)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 07:16 AM (#3837286)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM (#3837290)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

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


07 Feb 17 - 07:40 AM (#3837291)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


07 Feb 17 - 07:45 AM (#3837293)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


07 Feb 17 - 07:57 AM (#3837294)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 08:02 AM (#3837295)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 08:31 AM (#3837298)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 08:33 AM (#3837300)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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


07 Feb 17 - 08:36 AM (#3837301)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 08:45 AM (#3837303)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 09:05 AM (#3837304)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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".


07 Feb 17 - 09:20 AM (#3837306)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM (#3837314)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Here we go again.😡

PointlesspointlesspointlesspointlesspointlessPOINTLESSpointbloodyless...


07 Feb 17 - 09:47 AM (#3837315)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)

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


07 Feb 17 - 10:13 AM (#3837320)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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."


07 Feb 17 - 10:17 AM (#3837323)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 10:18 AM (#3837324)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


07 Feb 17 - 10:20 AM (#3837325)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!!!


07 Feb 17 - 10:29 AM (#3837327)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 10:31 AM (#3837329)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM (#3837331)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


07 Feb 17 - 10:38 AM (#3837332)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


07 Feb 17 - 10:44 AM (#3837335)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM (#3837338)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


07 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM (#3837339)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM (#3837340)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM (#3837343)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 11:07 AM (#3837344)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


07 Feb 17 - 11:12 AM (#3837346)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 11:17 AM (#3837348)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Almost half of Britons hold antisemitic view, poll suggests

Doesn't surprise me in the least.


07 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM (#3837349)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM (#3837350)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


07 Feb 17 - 11:31 AM (#3837353)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM (#3837355)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 12:07 PM (#3837361)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


07 Feb 17 - 12:10 PM (#3837362)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 12:13 PM (#3837363)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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?


07 Feb 17 - 12:16 PM (#3837364)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 12:19 PM (#3837366)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


07 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM (#3837367)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


07 Feb 17 - 12:36 PM (#3837369)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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.


07 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM (#3837371)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM (#3837373)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


07 Feb 17 - 01:40 PM (#3837375)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM (#3837387)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 02:49 PM (#3837390)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


07 Feb 17 - 02:56 PM (#3837393)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 03:15 PM (#3837396)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


07 Feb 17 - 03:55 PM (#3837402)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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

"Are you alright back there lads?"

:D tG


07 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM (#3837406)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Feb 17 - 05:00 PM (#3837411)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


07 Feb 17 - 05:18 PM (#3837415)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

What rules?

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


07 Feb 17 - 06:14 PM (#3837425)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

With friends like that......


07 Feb 17 - 06:57 PM (#3837432)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

......who needs enemas.


07 Feb 17 - 07:28 PM (#3837434)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Feb 17 - 07:33 PM (#3837436)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Feb 17 - 07:41 PM (#3837438)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


07 Feb 17 - 07:52 PM (#3837440)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


08 Feb 17 - 04:13 AM (#3837481)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


08 Feb 17 - 05:10 AM (#3837493)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


08 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM (#3837547)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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 ?"


08 Feb 17 - 10:05 AM (#3837548)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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

DtG


08 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM (#3837549)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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"


08 Feb 17 - 10:13 AM (#3837551)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


08 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM (#3837552)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


08 Feb 17 - 10:17 AM (#3837553)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


08 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM (#3837554)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Instead of offering peoples opinions professor, provide some evidence.

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


08 Feb 17 - 10:25 AM (#3837556)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM (#3837560)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


08 Feb 17 - 10:49 AM (#3837563)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


08 Feb 17 - 10:50 AM (#3837564)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Feb 17 - 10:55 AM (#3837565)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


08 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM (#3837569)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM (#3837571)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


08 Feb 17 - 11:28 AM (#3837573)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


08 Feb 17 - 01:43 PM (#3837602)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


08 Feb 17 - 01:47 PM (#3837603)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


08 Feb 17 - 03:09 PM (#3837617)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Feb 17 - 03:27 PM (#3837621)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


08 Feb 17 - 03:31 PM (#3837622)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


08 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM (#3837623)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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

The Lobby


08 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM (#3837624)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

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


08 Feb 17 - 03:44 PM (#3837625)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

Arabs always lie don't they Bobad?
Jim Carroll


08 Feb 17 - 03:59 PM (#3837630)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


08 Feb 17 - 04:11 PM (#3837631)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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 ...........


08 Feb 17 - 04:16 PM (#3837633)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Feb 17 - 04:51 PM (#3837640)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Feb 17 - 04:54 PM (#3837642)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Feb 17 - 05:55 PM (#3837648)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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?


08 Feb 17 - 06:24 PM (#3837655)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Feb 17 - 06:30 PM (#3837657)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


08 Feb 17 - 06:39 PM (#3837660)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Arabs always lie don't they Bobad?

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


08 Feb 17 - 07:46 PM (#3837668)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


08 Feb 17 - 07:56 PM (#3837669)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


08 Feb 17 - 08:56 PM (#3837679)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


08 Feb 17 - 09:23 PM (#3837683)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

" 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. 😂😂😂


09 Feb 17 - 02:40 AM (#3837700)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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

DtG


09 Feb 17 - 03:01 AM (#3837703)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 03:30 AM (#3837704)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


09 Feb 17 - 03:33 AM (#3837705)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


09 Feb 17 - 03:44 AM (#3837707)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM (#3837709)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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(


09 Feb 17 - 04:20 AM (#3837714)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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."


09 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM (#3837716)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 04:31 AM (#3837718)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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

From Wiki in a little more depth.


09 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM (#3837720)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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?


09 Feb 17 - 04:46 AM (#3837725)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


09 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM (#3837727)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 05:17 AM (#3837728)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM (#3837737)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


09 Feb 17 - 06:17 AM (#3837739)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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 ..........


09 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM (#3837744)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 07:11 AM (#3837747)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM (#3837751)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


09 Feb 17 - 07:39 AM (#3837752)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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 Jom, 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".


09 Feb 17 - 07:42 AM (#3837753)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM (#3837754)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM (#3837755)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Feb 17 - 08:32 AM (#3837756)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


09 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM (#3837757)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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)


09 Feb 17 - 08:47 AM (#3837758)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Feb 17 - 09:10 AM (#3837767)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 09:22 AM (#3837769)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Feb 17 - 03:06 PM (#3837838)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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 JOM - JOM because that is how he in the past has referred to himself. By the way Jom 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 JOM, 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".


09 Feb 17 - 03:15 PM (#3837840)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Feb 17 - 03:34 PM (#3837843)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Feb 17 - 03:43 PM (#3837845)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


09 Feb 17 - 03:43 PM (#3837846)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


09 Feb 17 - 04:40 PM (#3837858)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


09 Feb 17 - 05:31 PM (#3837868)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


09 Feb 17 - 05:36 PM (#3837871)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Feb 17 - 07:21 PM (#3837884)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


10 Feb 17 - 04:01 AM (#3837916)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


10 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM (#3837921)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

" 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


10 Feb 17 - 04:18 AM (#3837924)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"font confuse"
There you go Teribus - another typo for you to get your gums into
Should read "Don't confuse", of course
Jim Carroll


10 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM (#3837942)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

I think you have to go to Shaw for corrections on spelling, punctuation and grammar Jom.


10 Feb 17 - 05:22 AM (#3837944)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


10 Feb 17 - 05:24 AM (#3837945)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

And still your imbecilic "Jom"
"To ignorant to know and too thick to learn", as they say in Lancashire
Jim Carroll


10 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM (#3837947)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


10 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM (#3837953)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Feb 17 - 05:53 AM (#3837955)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


10 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM (#3837957)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


10 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM (#3837959)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


10 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM (#3837960)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Yep - Found it. Good point too considering the blurring of fact and fiction around here at times :-)

DtG


10 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM (#3837961)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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 Jom, 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 Jom, 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 Jom, but others following this thread might and they will see that I am telling the truth.).


10 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM (#3837966)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


10 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM (#3837970)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM (#3837975)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!


10 Feb 17 - 07:14 AM (#3837979)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


10 Feb 17 - 08:30 AM (#3837988)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM (#3837991)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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.


10 Feb 17 - 08:46 AM (#3837993)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


10 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM (#3837995)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


10 Feb 17 - 08:56 AM (#3837998)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Feb 17 - 09:05 AM (#3838000)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"Last time I found a pair of knickers!"
"Last night's Fun" as they are referred to around here!
Jim Carroll


10 Feb 17 - 09:10 AM (#3838003)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


10 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM (#3838005)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

...and why is there always a single trainer by the side of a busy road?


10 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM (#3838015)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"..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!


10 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM (#3838017)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

It's usually a pair hanging over the wires near where we were in Salford. Not seen it much in the Dales.

DtG


10 Feb 17 - 10:04 AM (#3838019)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

A local Guard (boy in blue) told me that it's an indication that drugs are available locally - never tested the claim
Jim Carroll


10 Feb 17 - 10:05 AM (#3838020)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


10 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM (#3838021)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

Sorry - should be a pair of trainers tied together by the laces obviously
Multi-tasking getting teh batter of me
Jim


10 Feb 17 - 10:09 AM (#3838022)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM (#3838023)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

I think I have more respect for my arse than to use it.


10 Feb 17 - 10:19 AM (#3838026)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

:-D


10 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM (#3838034)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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".


10 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM (#3838042)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


10 Feb 17 - 08:38 PM (#3838166)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


11 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM (#3838220)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Courtesy of Matt in today's Telegraph:

Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Labour's stuck with Corbyn
And I'm stuck with you


11 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM (#3838227)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


11 Feb 17 - 06:53 AM (#3838232)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


11 Feb 17 - 07:18 AM (#3838235)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Good Soldier Schweik

Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
Mays stuck with Brexit
And Trump is too.
another puerile ditty written in the style of McGonagle


11 Feb 17 - 07:24 AM (#3838238)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


11 Feb 17 - 07:53 AM (#3838242)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

I think Mr T's irony was aimed at those who imagine that this thread is about horticulture.   :0)

"None so blind"....eh?


11 Feb 17 - 01:03 PM (#3838291)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

It may as well be about horticulture. Most things would grow very will given the amount of shite being heaped on it :-)

DtG


11 Feb 17 - 01:35 PM (#3838294)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Feb 17 - 02:15 PM (#3838297)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Nice pic, Dave! Are you sure that Fr Sweeney's first name wasn't, appropriately looking at the photo, "Roger?" 😜


12 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM (#3838400)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


12 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM (#3838419)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Are you sure he wasn't "a Swedish Sweeney Todd, the dirty sod?" 😇


12 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM (#3838421)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


12 Feb 17 - 07:25 AM (#3838428)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


12 Feb 17 - 07:39 AM (#3838430)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


12 Feb 17 - 08:39 AM (#3838438)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Absofuckinglutely.


12 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM (#3838473)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


12 Feb 17 - 01:58 PM (#3838486)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


12 Feb 17 - 02:42 PM (#3838495)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


13 Feb 17 - 06:24 PM (#3838755)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


15 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM (#3839035)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


15 Feb 17 - 04:57 AM (#3839039)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

Tell us some more about the flowers in Connemara and restore some sanity into this thread Raggy - please
Jim Carroll


15 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM (#3839044)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


15 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM (#3839058)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


15 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM (#3839060)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


15 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM (#3839064)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM (#3839067)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


15 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM (#3839068)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


15 Feb 17 - 07:11 AM (#3839069)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


15 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM (#3839080)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


15 Feb 17 - 09:09 AM (#3839083)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

I've never used the expression "lying bollocks" in my life. Saying that I have is just lying bollocks. And there's a first.


15 Feb 17 - 09:14 AM (#3839085)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

"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


15 Feb 17 - 09:20 AM (#3839091)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?"


15 Feb 17 - 09:22 AM (#3839093)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

Steve, you used the expression "bollocks" in your earlier post.
That is what I referred to.


15 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM (#3839094)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

""lying bollocks"
I suppose it depends which side you dress on Steve - personally, I favour the left.
Jim Carroll


15 Feb 17 - 09:26 AM (#3839095)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Bollocks is not the same as lying bollocks is it. In this case you are talking both.


15 Feb 17 - 09:40 AM (#3839097)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

The pack of jackals still stalking their prey I see and no moderation to be seen......hmm, I wonder why that is?


15 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM (#3839099)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

There is a very simple solution Bobad. Refrain from posting lies and bollocks.

Simples.............


15 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM (#3839103)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


15 Feb 17 - 10:04 AM (#3839104)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

Or better yet, Bobad - refrain from posting, period.


15 Feb 17 - 10:27 AM (#3839111)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


15 Feb 17 - 11:49 AM (#3839127)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

In the wide open spaces of upper Ribblesdale, Dave, I doubt that it makes much difference. Sod it. Enjoy the puffer train!


15 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM (#3839130)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


15 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM (#3839136)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


15 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM (#3839138)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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"


15 Feb 17 - 01:04 PM (#3839142)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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/


15 Feb 17 - 01:07 PM (#3839144)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


15 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM (#3839148)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


15 Feb 17 - 01:30 PM (#3839150)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


15 Feb 17 - 02:08 PM (#3839155)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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?


15 Feb 17 - 04:01 PM (#3839167)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

"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.


15 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM (#3839180)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?"


15 Feb 17 - 05:45 PM (#3839185)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

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?


15 Feb 17 - 05:53 PM (#3839187)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Nah, they're nuts. Er, which I suppose could be the same thing...


15 Feb 17 - 07:48 PM (#3839193)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

I hope you fellers are lying down while you write bollocks
JIm Carroll


15 Feb 17 - 08:21 PM (#3839196)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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).


16 Feb 17 - 04:12 AM (#3839225)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


16 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM (#3839226)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


16 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM (#3839233)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


16 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM (#3839235)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


16 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM (#3839237)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


16 Feb 17 - 09:08 AM (#3839265)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Ye gods, it's a truly gorgeous day here. Might go for a stroll on the cliffs.


16 Feb 17 - 09:16 AM (#3839268)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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...


16 Feb 17 - 09:55 AM (#3839277)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Pack of trolling hyenas still at it I see - SSDD.


16 Feb 17 - 10:01 AM (#3839279)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

" 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


16 Feb 17 - 10:14 AM (#3839283)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


16 Feb 17 - 10:19 AM (#3839284)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


16 Feb 17 - 11:16 AM (#3839301)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


16 Feb 17 - 11:48 AM (#3839305)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


16 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM (#3839317)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


16 Feb 17 - 12:48 PM (#3839324)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"There was a young lady from Bude....
Did you meet her Steve?
Jim Carroll


16 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM (#3839327)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


16 Feb 17 - 02:52 PM (#3839352)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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"


16 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM (#3839354)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


16 Feb 17 - 03:08 PM (#3839355)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


16 Feb 17 - 03:13 PM (#3839357)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


16 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM (#3839360)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

"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.


16 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM (#3839362)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


16 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM (#3839367)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


16 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM (#3839371)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


16 Feb 17 - 04:17 PM (#3839375)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


16 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM (#3839388)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


16 Feb 17 - 06:01 PM (#3839399)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


16 Feb 17 - 06:07 PM (#3839402)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

We love Death In Paradise. Am I to understand that tonight's was the last in this series?


16 Feb 17 - 06:11 PM (#3839403)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


16 Feb 17 - 06:21 PM (#3839405)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Ah, right. I think I was topping up my glass when next week's trailer was on...🍷🍷🍷


16 Feb 17 - 07:28 PM (#3839421)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


16 Feb 17 - 07:50 PM (#3839427)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


17 Feb 17 - 04:34 AM (#3839466)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

" 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


17 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM (#3839468)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


17 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM (#3839471)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Maningitis, you didn't catch that in Manningham Lane did you. Could be nasty.


17 Feb 17 - 06:22 AM (#3839487)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


17 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM (#3839488)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Sad, Keith? I'll tell you what's sad!




No I won't...


17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM (#3839489)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


17 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM (#3839490)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


17 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM (#3839493)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


17 Feb 17 - 06:59 AM (#3839497)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

" 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.


17 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM (#3839499)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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, Jom) any claims by any of you of not acting in concert are patently meaningless and far from credible.


17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM (#3839500)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

OK Terikins, show me where Steve used the expression "lying bollocks"

That should be easy for you shouldn't it?


17 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM (#3839501)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


17 Feb 17 - 08:14 AM (#3839509)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


17 Feb 17 - 08:16 AM (#3839510)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


17 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM (#3839514)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

But the fact remains that no one has said that there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. Which is what you suggested.

DtG


17 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM (#3839515)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


17 Feb 17 - 08:54 AM (#3839516)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


17 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM (#3839517)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


17 Feb 17 - 09:04 AM (#3839518)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

"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.


17 Feb 17 - 09:59 AM (#3839529)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


17 Feb 17 - 11:06 AM (#3839538)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


17 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM (#3839552)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!!


17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM (#3839553)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Read your own posts.


17 Feb 17 - 01:22 PM (#3839554)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

You misquoted him. I've just proved it.


17 Feb 17 - 01:55 PM (#3839558)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


17 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM (#3839564)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

You referred to an expression "lying bollocks" an expression which Steve had not used.

It is all written down here for ALL to see.


17 Feb 17 - 02:28 PM (#3839567)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


17 Feb 17 - 02:59 PM (#3839571)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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 Jom 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 Jom's lying bollocks posted on this forum since 2007 ?????


17 Feb 17 - 03:10 PM (#3839573)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


17 Feb 17 - 03:41 PM (#3839576)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


17 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM (#3839580)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Good grief, look back at the professors post from 09.21 am on the 15th February.

Are you saying he didn't post this.


17 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM (#3839584)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

My apologies. The professors post was at 09.01 on the 15th not quiet the time I posted earlier.


17 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM (#3839586)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


17 Feb 17 - 05:46 PM (#3839601)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


17 Feb 17 - 05:54 PM (#3839606)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


18 Feb 17 - 03:53 AM (#3839653)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


18 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM (#3839655)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


18 Feb 17 - 04:13 AM (#3839657)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

still lying about it I see, despite the truth being there for all to see.


18 Feb 17 - 04:16 AM (#3839658)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Well the reality of the situation is Jom 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)


18 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM (#3839659)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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."


18 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM (#3839662)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


18 Feb 17 - 04:43 AM (#3839666)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

Well the reality of the situation is Jom"
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


18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM (#3839671)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM (#3839672)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


18 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM (#3839674)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

It ill-behoves you to draw attention to your posting history, Teribus. Bit of a drought above the line, eh?


18 Feb 17 - 12:36 PM (#3839766)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


18 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM (#3839791)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


18 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM (#3839798)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM (#3839815)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.


18 Feb 17 - 09:46 PM (#3839845)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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).


19 Feb 17 - 02:43 AM (#3839858)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Joe Offer

Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it...

What are the issues you'd like to address?


19 Feb 17 - 03:17 AM (#3839861)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


19 Feb 17 - 04:05 AM (#3839873)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?


19 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM (#3839879)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


19 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM (#3839928)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


19 Feb 17 - 08:36 AM (#3839932)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


19 Feb 17 - 09:36 AM (#3839939)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

According to Carroll:

Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion

Seems as though Jom and his pals are the only people entitled to opinions - How typically "socialist" of you.


19 Feb 17 - 02:32 PM (#3839992)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


19 Feb 17 - 03:04 PM (#3839993)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


19 Feb 17 - 03:06 PM (#3839994)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion"
According to Teribus
Torrent of abuse = par for the course
Jim Carroll


19 Feb 17 - 03:54 PM (#3840007)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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)


19 Feb 17 - 03:56 PM (#3840008)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim


19 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM (#3840037)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


19 Feb 17 - 09:12 PM (#3840038)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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!


20 Feb 17 - 03:41 AM (#3840062)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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(


20 Feb 17 - 03:42 AM (#3840063)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


20 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM (#3840068)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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


20 Feb 17 - 04:20 AM (#3840071)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


20 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM (#3840072)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


20 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM (#3840073)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

There were lots of Snowdrops out at the weekend, in some area down Wensleydale in particular there were vast swaths of them. Serenely beautiful.


20 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM (#3840078)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


20 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM (#3840082)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


20 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM (#3840090)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


20 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM (#3840111)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM (#3840114)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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)


20 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM (#3840116)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

in heaven we'll all play beautifully and sing. and in the other place too.

take my word for it.


20 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM (#3840118)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


20 Feb 17 - 07:50 AM (#3840122)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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"


20 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM (#3840125)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

`"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


20 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM (#3840134)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.


20 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM (#3840143)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


20 Feb 17 - 09:48 AM (#3840150)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Reinventing the dictionary yet again.


20 Feb 17 - 10:52 AM (#3840158)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


20 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM (#3840162)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

And isn't THAT rich coming from a Truth hater!


20 Feb 17 - 12:06 PM (#3840169)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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".


20 Feb 17 - 12:23 PM (#3840177)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


20 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM (#3840188)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

I have never met and am unlikely too.

You have a property in Ireland within reach of Jim.
He has suggested you call in.


20 Feb 17 - 01:10 PM (#3840195)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


20 Feb 17 - 02:18 PM (#3840220)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


20 Feb 17 - 02:20 PM (#3840221)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM (#3840231)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


20 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM (#3840232)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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!


20 Feb 17 - 03:03 PM (#3840236)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


20 Feb 17 - 03:14 PM (#3840240)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


20 Feb 17 - 03:18 PM (#3840241)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Oh dear Jom, 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 Jom?


20 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM (#3840246)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


20 Feb 17 - 03:42 PM (#3840247)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


20 Feb 17 - 03:45 PM (#3840248)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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


20 Feb 17 - 03:55 PM (#3840252)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw


20 Feb 17 - 04:12 PM (#3840256)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


20 Feb 17 - 04:36 PM (#3840266)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


20 Feb 17 - 05:28 PM (#3840272)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


20 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM (#3840292)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


21 Feb 17 - 03:23 AM (#3840337)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


21 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM (#3840351)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


21 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM (#3840355)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


21 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM (#3840356)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


21 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM (#3840362)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

" "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


21 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM (#3840385)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


21 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM (#3840389)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


21 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM (#3840443)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


21 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM (#3840444)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


21 Feb 17 - 11:22 AM (#3840454)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


21 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM (#3840460)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

And having writ moves on ...............


21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM (#3840465)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM (#3840467)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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." "


21 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM (#3840507)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


21 Feb 17 - 02:22 PM (#3840515)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


21 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM (#3840523)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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?


21 Feb 17 - 03:11 PM (#3840531)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


21 Feb 17 - 03:25 PM (#3840536)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


21 Feb 17 - 05:50 PM (#3840575)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


21 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM (#3840577)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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


21 Feb 17 - 06:27 PM (#3840586)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


21 Feb 17 - 06:52 PM (#3840593)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


21 Feb 17 - 06:55 PM (#3840595)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

More than wobble, Al. Turn into a tabletop to put his pint on, more like.


21 Feb 17 - 07:15 PM (#3840600)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Al, it wasn't Keiths father in law.


21 Feb 17 - 07:36 PM (#3840608)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


21 Feb 17 - 08:55 PM (#3840622)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

My apologies Keith!


22 Feb 17 - 01:55 AM (#3840652)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

" 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.


22 Feb 17 - 03:50 AM (#3840665)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


22 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM (#3840677)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


22 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM (#3840689)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


22 Feb 17 - 04:57 AM (#3840690)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


22 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM (#3840694)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


22 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM (#3840713)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


22 Feb 17 - 07:53 AM (#3840717)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


22 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM (#3840718)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


22 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM (#3840731)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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 Jom. But one you are not going to get away with.

Not just "underage sex" was it Jom? 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 Jom had any of those girls come to you would have done no different.

You wanted quotes Jom:

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 Jom, WTF would he know about it!! No doubt you know better than the man himself and tell him what he really was thinking.


22 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM (#3840736)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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/


22 Feb 17 - 10:57 AM (#3840751)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


22 Feb 17 - 11:51 AM (#3840777)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


22 Feb 17 - 12:31 PM (#3840784)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


22 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM (#3840803)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


22 Feb 17 - 04:09 PM (#3840824)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


22 Feb 17 - 05:22 PM (#3840844)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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?


22 Feb 17 - 05:55 PM (#3840850)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


23 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM (#3840910)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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."


23 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM (#3840913)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


23 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM (#3840914)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

"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


23 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM (#3840915)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


23 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM (#3840917)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM (#3840920)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


23 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM (#3840921)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Good job Jim and I take no notice!


23 Feb 17 - 06:04 AM (#3840923)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


23 Feb 17 - 06:07 AM (#3840924)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

LOL


23 Feb 17 - 06:21 AM (#3840928)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM (#3840930)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


23 Feb 17 - 06:44 AM (#3840931)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


23 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM (#3840935)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


23 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM (#3840938)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


23 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM (#3840940)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


23 Feb 17 - 08:10 AM (#3840946)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Where is that quote from, what does it specifically refer to.


23 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM (#3840951)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

"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


23 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM (#3840954)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


23 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM (#3840955)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


23 Feb 17 - 09:11 AM (#3840960)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


23 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM (#3841000)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


23 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM (#3841001)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


23 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM (#3841004)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


23 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM (#3841006)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


23 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM (#3841015)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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.


23 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM (#3841019)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


23 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM (#3841020)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


23 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM (#3841021)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


23 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM (#3841024)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


23 Feb 17 - 03:09 PM (#3841038)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


23 Feb 17 - 03:21 PM (#3841044)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


23 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM (#3841056)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 03:57 AM (#3841134)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM (#3841135)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 04:38 AM (#3841139)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM (#3841141)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


24 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM (#3841143)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Death by C&P?


24 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM (#3841145)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


24 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM (#3841146)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


24 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM (#3841148)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM (#3841150)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Looks like my first paragraph was the one that got away, proofreadingly-speaking.


24 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM (#3841155)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


24 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM (#3841156)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM (#3841167)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

The same question could also be asked of you mr gnome.


24 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM (#3841168)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Link

Interesting article about sexual offences in Sweden, doesn't seem to support the racist rants we get here.


24 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM (#3841169)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Try again

Link


24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM (#3841171)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

How strange

BBC News today. Is Malmo the "rape capital" of Europe?


24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM (#3841172)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Not really Iains but beside the point anyway. My question was addressed to ake.

DtG


24 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM (#3841173)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 07:26 AM (#3841177)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM (#3841179)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM (#3841182)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM (#3841188)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM (#3841192)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Telling me which thread are you talking about would help...

DtG


24 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM (#3841194)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM (#3841196)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.)


24 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM (#3841200)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Ta.


24 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM (#3841203)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM (#3841204)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

" 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.


24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM (#3841208)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Care to tell us what you actually think about the professors cultural implant theory?


24 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM (#3841210)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

You've nailed it Teribus and your conclusion is one that that I arrived at some time ago myself.


24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM (#3841213)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Which professor would that be Raggy?


24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM (#3841214)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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 :-)


24 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM (#3841216)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


24 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM (#3841217)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Oh dear, Mr. Corbyn and his party sure have some......er...."interesting" friends and followers: The Palestine Solidarity Campaign of Jew hatred


24 Feb 17 - 09:51 AM (#3841219)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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


24 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM (#3841225)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Pretty much the points I was making back in 2011, Iains.

Thanks anyway

DtG


24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM (#3841226)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM (#3841227)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

" 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


24 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM (#3841231)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


24 Feb 17 - 10:15 AM (#3841233)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM (#3841234)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


24 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM (#3841240)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 10:45 AM (#3841242)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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."


24 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM (#3841245)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 11:11 AM (#3841249)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


24 Feb 17 - 11:23 AM (#3841251)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM (#3841255)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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."


24 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM (#3841256)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM (#3841259)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


24 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM (#3841260)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM (#3841268)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


24 Feb 17 - 02:29 PM (#3841281)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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?


24 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM (#3841282)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


24 Feb 17 - 02:54 PM (#3841286)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


24 Feb 17 - 04:33 PM (#3841303)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


24 Feb 17 - 05:50 PM (#3841314)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM (#3841315)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


24 Feb 17 - 08:06 PM (#3841335)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


24 Feb 17 - 08:19 PM (#3841336)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel

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.


24 Feb 17 - 08:36 PM (#3841339)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


25 Feb 17 - 02:28 AM (#3841372)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


25 Feb 17 - 02:57 AM (#3841375)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


25 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM (#3841379)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


25 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM (#3841380)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

"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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM (#3841384)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM (#3841385)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM (#3841386)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM (#3841387)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM (#3841388)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM (#3841389)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


25 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM (#3841392)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


25 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM (#3841394)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM (#3841395)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


25 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM (#3841397)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Paranoia, pure and simple. There is no "little gang" it's all in your head.


25 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM (#3841400)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


25 Feb 17 - 06:11 AM (#3841401)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


25 Feb 17 - 07:05 AM (#3841409)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


25 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM (#3841411)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM (#3841413)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM (#3841414)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


25 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM (#3841417)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Why is Christianity (or any other religion)losing ground perceived as a bad thing.


25 Feb 17 - 08:21 AM (#3841425)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM (#3841430)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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


25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM (#3841431)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


25 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM (#3841433)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


25 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM (#3841438)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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).


25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM (#3841440)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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. 😂😂😂


25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM (#3841441)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


25 Feb 17 - 08:55 AM (#3841442)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


25 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM (#3841446)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


25 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM (#3841448)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


25 Feb 17 - 09:38 AM (#3841454)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

""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


25 Feb 17 - 10:36 AM (#3841461)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


25 Feb 17 - 10:41 AM (#3841465)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


25 Feb 17 - 10:59 AM (#3841471)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM (#3841473)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM (#3841474)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM (#3841475)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.'


25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM (#3841476)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM (#3841480)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


25 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM (#3841482)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


25 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM (#3841483)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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?


25 Feb 17 - 11:55 AM (#3841486)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM (#3841488)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


25 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM (#3841492)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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! 😂


25 Feb 17 - 12:33 PM (#3841493)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


25 Feb 17 - 12:41 PM (#3841494)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


25 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM (#3841495)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


25 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM (#3841496)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Give it a rest, Bill. You look daft.


25 Feb 17 - 01:41 PM (#3841511)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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 JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM 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 JOM - 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 JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"


25 Feb 17 - 02:00 PM (#3841516)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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?


25 Feb 17 - 02:35 PM (#3841520)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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?


25 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM (#3841521)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


25 Feb 17 - 02:49 PM (#3841524)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


25 Feb 17 - 03:01 PM (#3841526)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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.


25 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM (#3841529)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


25 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM (#3841532)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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...


25 Feb 17 - 03:47 PM (#3841534)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

That was just one of the exchanges bobad. I am happy to dig the other out if you want to persist.

DtG


25 Feb 17 - 03:52 PM (#3841535)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM (#3841543)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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,


25 Feb 17 - 04:30 PM (#3841544)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

He's not worth it, Dave. Saturday night is imbibing night. To employ a word I bloody hate, chillax!


25 Feb 17 - 04:38 PM (#3841547)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


25 Feb 17 - 04:59 PM (#3841553)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


25 Feb 17 - 05:02 PM (#3841556)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.....


25 Feb 17 - 05:03 PM (#3841557)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Well you know who to vote for then, don't you, Mr Socialist? 😂


25 Feb 17 - 05:06 PM (#3841560)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

That one was directed at akenaton, Al, as I'm sure you realise!


25 Feb 17 - 05:39 PM (#3841566)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


25 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM (#3841568)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


25 Feb 17 - 06:03 PM (#3841570)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


25 Feb 17 - 06:13 PM (#3841572)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


25 Feb 17 - 06:23 PM (#3841575)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Still, not my gig.

Lol.....but I am compelled to make it so by some unseen power, must be them dastardly Jews again.


25 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM (#3841577)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


26 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM (#3841609)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


26 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM (#3841610)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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.


26 Feb 17 - 04:44 AM (#3841615)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


26 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM (#3841619)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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?


26 Feb 17 - 07:05 AM (#3841632)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


26 Feb 17 - 07:07 AM (#3841633)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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."


26 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM (#3841636)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


26 Feb 17 - 07:30 AM (#3841643)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!😂


26 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM (#3841644)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


26 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM (#3841646)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


26 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM (#3841647)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


26 Feb 17 - 07:34 AM (#3841648)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


26 Feb 17 - 07:34 AM (#3841649)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


26 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM (#3841651)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


26 Feb 17 - 08:07 AM (#3841654)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


26 Feb 17 - 08:09 AM (#3841655)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Ain't no "pack" either.


26 Feb 17 - 08:42 AM (#3841661)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


26 Feb 17 - 08:49 AM (#3841662)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Touché, Keith!


26 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM (#3841666)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"Touché, Keith!"
Never mind Keith - toy have the God of the Trolls on your side
Jim Carroll


26 Feb 17 - 09:36 AM (#3841672)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


26 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM (#3841684)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


26 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM (#3841694)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


26 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM (#3841699)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


26 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM (#3841706)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


26 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM (#3841708)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


26 Feb 17 - 11:55 AM (#3841717)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


26 Feb 17 - 12:03 PM (#3841720)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


26 Feb 17 - 12:05 PM (#3841722)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

" 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.


26 Feb 17 - 12:20 PM (#3841726)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


26 Feb 17 - 12:30 PM (#3841727)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


26 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM (#3841731)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


26 Feb 17 - 01:03 PM (#3841733)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

Raggytash, I think you will find that Keith was addressing the singular crime of street grooming and associated abuse of minors.


26 Feb 17 - 01:12 PM (#3841734)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


26 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM (#3841735)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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! 😂


26 Feb 17 - 01:16 PM (#3841737)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


26 Feb 17 - 01:47 PM (#3841742)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


26 Feb 17 - 02:10 PM (#3841745)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


26 Feb 17 - 02:48 PM (#3841754)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


26 Feb 17 - 02:57 PM (#3841756)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

""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


26 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM (#3841758)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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.


26 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM (#3841759)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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.


26 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM (#3841765)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

right! the guardian thinks everyone in boston are all subject to racist delusions regarding their situation. you agree with them.


26 Feb 17 - 05:09 PM (#3841773)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


26 Feb 17 - 05:29 PM (#3841777)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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?" 😂


26 Feb 17 - 05:57 PM (#3841784)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


26 Feb 17 - 06:35 PM (#3841797)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


26 Feb 17 - 06:56 PM (#3841798)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


26 Feb 17 - 07:51 PM (#3841806)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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? 😂


26 Feb 17 - 08:39 PM (#3841811)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


26 Feb 17 - 09:40 PM (#3841818)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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


27 Feb 17 - 01:38 AM (#3841823)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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 Jom:

"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 Jom - 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.


27 Feb 17 - 01:42 AM (#3841824)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

,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.


27 Feb 17 - 03:05 AM (#3841830)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


27 Feb 17 - 03:33 AM (#3841833)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 03:42 AM (#3841834)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


27 Feb 17 - 03:54 AM (#3841838)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

So then Keith. Do you now accept that there may be other reasons for the over-representation?

DtG


27 Feb 17 - 03:56 AM (#3841839)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


27 Feb 17 - 03:59 AM (#3841840)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


27 Feb 17 - 04:02 AM (#3841842)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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! "


27 Feb 17 - 04:08 AM (#3841844)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


27 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM (#3841845)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM (#3841846)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


27 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM (#3841847)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


27 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM (#3841848)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM (#3841849)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


27 Feb 17 - 05:02 AM (#3841852)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

" 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.


27 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM (#3841861)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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.


27 Feb 17 - 06:19 AM (#3841866)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


27 Feb 17 - 06:20 AM (#3841867)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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. 😂


27 Feb 17 - 06:23 AM (#3841868)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Jaysus, I'll say this for you, Teribus. I admire your boundless energy if nothing else (AND nothing else, actually). Alternatively, get a life.


27 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM (#3841871)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

"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.


27 Feb 17 - 06:46 AM (#3841876)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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?


27 Feb 17 - 07:11 AM (#3841883)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


27 Feb 17 - 07:17 AM (#3841885)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM (#3841886)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

merely responding in kind jimmy.


27 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM (#3841891)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


27 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM (#3841892)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


27 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM (#3841894)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 08:01 AM (#3841895)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


27 Feb 17 - 08:02 AM (#3841896)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


27 Feb 17 - 08:21 AM (#3841902)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


27 Feb 17 - 08:26 AM (#3841906)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


27 Feb 17 - 08:32 AM (#3841908)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


27 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM (#3841910)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


27 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM (#3841912)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM (#3841914)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


27 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM (#3841918)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


27 Feb 17 - 09:53 AM (#3841921)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


27 Feb 17 - 10:32 AM (#3841928)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


27 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM (#3841929)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

You have a problem with names don't you terrikins, Jom, Carroll, Christmas, Shaw, Gnome, Raggy to mention but a few.


27 Feb 17 - 11:01 AM (#3841932)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


27 Feb 17 - 11:20 AM (#3841935)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


27 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM (#3841952)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


27 Feb 17 - 12:28 PM (#3841956)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


27 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM (#3841964)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Boring, bobad. Nobody cares.


27 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM (#3841967)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

".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


27 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM (#3841970)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

Or, to keep it simple, just go away.


27 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM (#3841971)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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?


27 Feb 17 - 01:36 PM (#3841975)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


27 Feb 17 - 01:44 PM (#3841979)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


27 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM (#3841981)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


27 Feb 17 - 01:59 PM (#3841982)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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


27 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM (#3841986)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


27 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM (#3841988)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


27 Feb 17 - 02:27 PM (#3841991)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


27 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM (#3841992)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


27 Feb 17 - 05:19 PM (#3842008)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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. 😡


27 Feb 17 - 07:07 PM (#3842018)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


27 Feb 17 - 09:17 PM (#3842026)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Of course you are, Bill! You're obsessed! I LOVE all the attention you bestow on me! 😂😂😂


28 Feb 17 - 03:14 AM (#3842039)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

"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.


28 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM (#3842046)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


28 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM (#3842052)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM (#3842053)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


28 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM (#3842054)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM (#3842055)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 05:20 AM (#3842056)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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".


28 Feb 17 - 05:22 AM (#3842058)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM (#3842059)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


28 Feb 17 - 05:35 AM (#3842061)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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."


28 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM (#3842062)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM (#3842063)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


28 Feb 17 - 06:29 AM (#3842068)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


28 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM (#3842070)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"You believed," did you, Keith? Do you decided to hector me on the basis of "your belief," huh? 😂😂😂


28 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM (#3842072)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM (#3842074)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM (#3842077)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 06:50 AM (#3842079)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

I am not denying doing it. I am denying enthusiasm. You made that bit up.

DtG


28 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM (#3842080)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


28 Feb 17 - 06:55 AM (#3842082)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


28 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM (#3842083)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

' I like the concept of the socialist underpant.'

hmmmm!


28 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM (#3842084)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Life has enough complications without putting buttons on underpants.


28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM (#3842086)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


28 Feb 17 - 07:12 AM (#3842088)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Knickers to the pair of 'em, Jim!


28 Feb 17 - 07:20 AM (#3842091)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


28 Feb 17 - 07:24 AM (#3842093)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


28 Feb 17 - 07:44 AM (#3842096)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 07:44 AM (#3842097)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"In a responsible adult manner"

Indeed. I had to read it twice to convince myself that it was really you. Keep it up!


28 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM (#3842099)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


28 Feb 17 - 07:49 AM (#3842100)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


28 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM (#3842102)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Piss off you pair of racist pricks
Jim Carroll


Come on Jimmy, take defeat like a man.


28 Feb 17 - 08:08 AM (#3842104)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM (#3842107)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM (#3842108)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!!!"


28 Feb 17 - 08:23 AM (#3842109)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


28 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM (#3842110)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


28 Feb 17 - 08:31 AM (#3842112)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 08:34 AM (#3842113)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


28 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM (#3842118)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Just by way of contrast Google have marked today as the birthday of Abdul Sattar Edhi. Amazing bloke.

Wiki article

Cheers

DtG


28 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM (#3842119)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


28 Feb 17 - 09:15 AM (#3842120)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Er, Dave, I got Mary Hopkin when I clicked on that. Very nice but is it what you meant?


28 Feb 17 - 09:30 AM (#3842121)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


28 Feb 17 - 09:34 AM (#3842122)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 09:42 AM (#3842123)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

I preferred Mary.


28 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM (#3842124)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 10:29 AM (#3842129)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM (#3842132)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


28 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM (#3842133)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


28 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM (#3842135)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 10:47 AM (#3842136)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


28 Feb 17 - 10:50 AM (#3842138)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 10:56 AM (#3842139)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!


28 Feb 17 - 10:58 AM (#3842140)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Ah, the man of the clenching buttocks! 😂😂😂


28 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM (#3842141)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

My mate told me that Hughie Green was an utterly arrogant, bad-tempered a-hole. That reminds me...🤔


28 Feb 17 - 11:09 AM (#3842143)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM (#3842144)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM (#3842146)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

D THE G. To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?


28 Feb 17 - 12:35 PM (#3842153)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

A fine display of erudition and intellect, doncha think
Hit and run seems the order of the day with this here
Jim Carroll


28 Feb 17 - 12:39 PM (#3842154)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM (#3842155)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 12:49 PM (#3842156)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


28 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM (#3842158)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM (#3842159)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM (#3842160)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

D the G. Glad you enjoyed the pancakes. I like mine with maple syrup.


28 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM (#3842161)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM (#3842163)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


28 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM (#3842166)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


28 Feb 17 - 01:25 PM (#3842167)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

Seems we've retreated back to the trenches
Jim Carroll


28 Feb 17 - 01:33 PM (#3842171)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

An interesting response by some to my post of 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

Matthew 7:16


28 Feb 17 - 01:39 PM (#3842172)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Maple syrup is good to. Albeit a little colonial :-)

DtG


28 Feb 17 - 01:43 PM (#3842173)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


28 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM (#3842177)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM (#3842178)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Boring - you certainly are Shaw. It must be an awful burden being a serial "Gobshite".


28 Feb 17 - 03:00 PM (#3842184)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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.


28 Feb 17 - 04:24 PM (#3842190)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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??


28 Feb 17 - 05:11 PM (#3842198)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


28 Feb 17 - 05:17 PM (#3842199)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


28 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM (#3842200)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


01 Mar 17 - 01:44 AM (#3842225)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


01 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM (#3842232)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


01 Mar 17 - 03:25 AM (#3842233)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Sorry, missed a bit

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahaha


01 Mar 17 - 04:31 AM (#3842236)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


01 Mar 17 - 04:33 AM (#3842237)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


01 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM (#3842238)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

Dave, anyone can type what you just did.
Responding to what has been said is harder.
Impossible for some apparently.


01 Mar 17 - 04:41 AM (#3842240)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

It was a response, Keith. How better to respond to personal abuse or would you rather I respond in kind?

DtG


01 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM (#3842242)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


01 Mar 17 - 05:21 AM (#3842245)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Work it out for yourself, Teribus :-)

DtG


01 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM (#3842252)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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.


01 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM (#3842254)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


01 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM (#3842258)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


01 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM (#3842263)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


01 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM (#3842268)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


01 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM (#3842270)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


01 Mar 17 - 08:17 AM (#3842274)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


01 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM (#3842287)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


01 Mar 17 - 10:36 AM (#3842293)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle

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!


01 Mar 17 - 04:38 PM (#3842337)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

Jimmie.
Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version


01 Mar 17 - 04:51 PM (#3842340)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


01 Mar 17 - 05:09 PM (#3842343)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Hypocrisy from a blatant anti-Semite? How shocking.


01 Mar 17 - 05:58 PM (#3842351)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


01 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM (#3842365)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


02 Mar 17 - 02:09 AM (#3842380)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


02 Mar 17 - 04:26 AM (#3842397)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM (#3842400)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

... 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


02 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM (#3842408)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM (#3842412)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM (#3842414)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

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!


02 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM (#3842415)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Or maybe only partly right? :-)

DtG


02 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM (#3842417)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 07:01 AM (#3842419)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM (#3842420)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


02 Mar 17 - 07:07 AM (#3842421)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 07:09 AM (#3842422)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM (#3842423)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


02 Mar 17 - 07:29 AM (#3842427)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Bloody cold and draughty in Radcliffe Asda car park. And now Mother wants to go to Whitefield Morrisons. Woe is me!


02 Mar 17 - 07:29 AM (#3842428)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Sounds brilliant, Raggy. I have not tried your marmalade yet - Will there be any left at Whitby FF time?

Cheers

D.


02 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM (#3842429)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM (#3842430)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


02 Mar 17 - 08:08 AM (#3842434)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


02 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM (#3842435)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 08:31 AM (#3842439)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Dave,
I'll keep a jar back, I have also added Whiskey to a couple of batches so you have a choice.


02 Mar 17 - 08:51 AM (#3842442)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


02 Mar 17 - 09:26 AM (#3842444)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


02 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM (#3842450)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 10:28 AM (#3842452)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

If anyone takes this part of the forum seriously they really do need medical help.

Psychiatrists at the ready !!!!


02 Mar 17 - 10:32 AM (#3842453)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 10:50 AM (#3842456)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 11:18 AM (#3842462)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM (#3842463)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


02 Mar 17 - 11:59 AM (#3842470)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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.


02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM (#3842472)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


02 Mar 17 - 12:18 PM (#3842474)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


02 Mar 17 - 12:52 PM (#3842481)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


02 Mar 17 - 01:22 PM (#3842485)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


02 Mar 17 - 01:54 PM (#3842490)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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!


02 Mar 17 - 02:07 PM (#3842492)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


02 Mar 17 - 02:17 PM (#3842497)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains

Hey Raggytash.
Isaiah 5:21


02 Mar 17 - 02:20 PM (#3842498)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 02:27 PM (#3842500)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM (#3842502)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM (#3842503)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"Isaiah 5:21"
Iain Paisley is back - mind your bums lads
Jim Carroll


02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM (#3842504)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM (#3842505)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

1000!

Not received the new undies yet but I'll keep you posted.

:D tG


02 Mar 17 - 02:32 PM (#3842507)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


02 Mar 17 - 03:04 PM (#3842511)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 03:17 PM (#3842514)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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


02 Mar 17 - 03:37 PM (#3842517)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


02 Mar 17 - 03:52 PM (#3842519)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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/


02 Mar 17 - 04:13 PM (#3842522)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Raggy, at the moment it does not appear that it is Keith A doing the complaining.


02 Mar 17 - 04:40 PM (#3842525)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


02 Mar 17 - 04:41 PM (#3842527)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!


02 Mar 17 - 05:48 PM (#3842533)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


02 Mar 17 - 07:44 PM (#3842548)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


03 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM (#3842574)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


03 Mar 17 - 04:11 AM (#3842576)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


03 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM (#3842580)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 05:19 AM (#3842584)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


03 Mar 17 - 05:27 AM (#3842586)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 05:43 AM (#3842592)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


03 Mar 17 - 06:23 AM (#3842597)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 06:38 AM (#3842603)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 06:47 AM (#3842606)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Mar 17 - 06:52 AM (#3842608)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Posted this on the World's thinnest books thread earlier, Jim. Thought you might appreciate it :-)

Cheers

DtG


03 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM (#3842609)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


03 Mar 17 - 07:30 AM (#3842614)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Mar 17 - 08:01 AM (#3842618)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Mar 17 - 08:53 AM (#3842634)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 08:58 AM (#3842636)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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 !


03 Mar 17 - 09:15 AM (#3842639)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 10:32 AM (#3842650)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 10:56 AM (#3842656)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


03 Mar 17 - 10:58 AM (#3842658)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Must be the tablets.


03 Mar 17 - 11:06 AM (#3842661)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

Rag, tell your friend to stop taking them then.


03 Mar 17 - 11:23 AM (#3842665)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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.


03 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM (#3842667)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


03 Mar 17 - 11:36 AM (#3842668)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

That could SO be to me Raggy :-)

DtG


03 Mar 17 - 11:54 AM (#3842672)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

LOL, relax Dave, not aimed at yourself as I'm sure you know.


03 Mar 17 - 12:40 PM (#3842677)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Mar 17 - 02:03 PM (#3842683)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


03 Mar 17 - 02:08 PM (#3842684)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Dunno, Keith. You are the font of all knowledge. I am just an immoral shit.

:D tG


03 Mar 17 - 02:34 PM (#3842689)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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


03 Mar 17 - 03:04 PM (#3842691)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


03 Mar 17 - 03:52 PM (#3842694)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


03 Mar 17 - 04:00 PM (#3842696)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

I'm a prophet! I'm a prophet! 🕺🏻


🕵🏼‍♀️


03 Mar 17 - 04:48 PM (#3842702)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

No Shaw simply a dissembling liar.


03 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM (#3842704)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

And you're just a big pile of poo! Nyah nyah na nyah nyah!

       💩
      💩💩
   💩💩💩
💩💩💩💩


03 Mar 17 - 07:25 PM (#3842716)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


03 Mar 17 - 07:31 PM (#3842718)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

(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.


03 Mar 17 - 07:44 PM (#3842724)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

You're another pile of poo too, poobad!

Nyah nyah na nyah nyah!

       💩
      💩💩
   💩💩💩
💩💩💩💩


03 Mar 17 - 08:03 PM (#3842725)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Hey Shaw, love the self portraits, they capture your essence, if you know what I mean.


03 Mar 17 - 08:18 PM (#3842726)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


03 Mar 17 - 08:23 PM (#3842727)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


03 Mar 17 - 09:15 PM (#3842737)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


03 Mar 17 - 09:26 PM (#3842740)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Ooh darling! Hard to get is what I am! I'm not your type! I poo-poo you, booboo!


03 Mar 17 - 09:39 PM (#3842743)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Poo poo is it Stevie, sorry but that's not my predilection, but whatever turns you on. Who am I to judge?


04 Mar 17 - 01:06 AM (#3842754)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Further examples of what you consider to be "measured and careful argument" there Shaw?


04 Mar 17 - 03:30 AM (#3842759)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

I think Steve has finally found his true level, Mr T.


04 Mar 17 - 03:53 AM (#3842763)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Mar 17 - 04:03 AM (#3842764)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


04 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM (#3842766)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Mar 17 - 05:08 AM (#3842771)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

I know, Jim, but I feel we are doing a service. Bit like care in the community I suppose.

:D tG


04 Mar 17 - 05:30 AM (#3842773)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


04 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM (#3842811)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

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...


04 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM (#3842836)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


04 Mar 17 - 02:48 PM (#3842851)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"enjoy the ride :-)
Speaking of which. Been anywhere nice?"
Bet he want to Alton Towers!!
Jim Carroll


04 Mar 17 - 04:13 PM (#3842863)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Backwoodsman

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.


04 Mar 17 - 04:21 PM (#3842864)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Knock knock

Who's there?

Big Issue!

Bless you!


04 Mar 17 - 06:13 PM (#3842873)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


04 Mar 17 - 07:02 PM (#3842886)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Had a fabulous weekend raising monies for the Runswick Bay Rescue Boat.

Brill !!


04 Mar 17 - 07:49 PM (#3842895)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


05 Mar 17 - 04:18 AM (#3842952)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"TTFN. I'll try not to be back, but I can't guarantee it."
Ah Cmon Backie
Is it something we said?
Jim Carroll


05 Mar 17 - 01:28 PM (#3843015)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Mar 17 - 01:37 PM (#3843017)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Mar 17 - 03:42 PM (#3843034)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


05 Mar 17 - 04:13 PM (#3843040)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Mar 17 - 04:22 PM (#3843041)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Could I opt to be Alan-a-Dale


05 Mar 17 - 04:27 PM (#3843042)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


05 Mar 17 - 04:52 PM (#3843044)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


06 Mar 17 - 06:01 PM (#3843289)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Mar 17 - 02:27 AM (#3843347)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


07 Mar 17 - 03:38 AM (#3843356)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM (#3843372)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


07 Mar 17 - 04:57 AM (#3843376)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.)


07 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM (#3843378)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM (#3843379)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


07 Mar 17 - 05:31 AM (#3843384)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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.


07 Mar 17 - 05:32 AM (#3843385)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Got me italicising in a muddle there!


07 Mar 17 - 05:42 AM (#3843388)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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)


07 Mar 17 - 06:16 AM (#3843395)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


07 Mar 17 - 07:24 AM (#3843409)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


07 Mar 17 - 07:33 AM (#3843412)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Don't tell him, Pike!


07 Mar 17 - 07:58 AM (#3843419)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Mar 17 - 08:14 AM (#3843422)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Mar 17 - 09:54 AM (#3843442)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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).


07 Mar 17 - 10:01 AM (#3843443)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


07 Mar 17 - 10:06 AM (#3843444)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!


07 Mar 17 - 10:11 AM (#3843445)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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 !


07 Mar 17 - 10:17 AM (#3843446)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Sorry, mate. My head was in the sand there for a sec...


07 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM (#3843484)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


07 Mar 17 - 05:25 PM (#3843515)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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.


07 Mar 17 - 05:44 PM (#3843518)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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....


07 Mar 17 - 07:12 PM (#3843536)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


08 Mar 17 - 02:14 AM (#3843569)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


08 Mar 17 - 02:43 AM (#3843570)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Lister Park was covered in a carpet of crocuses this morning. Looks spectacular. Germane? Look up Lister's Mill and the Labour movement :-)

DtG


08 Mar 17 - 03:16 AM (#3843581)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


08 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM (#3843584)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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! 🙂


08 Mar 17 - 03:31 AM (#3843588)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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!!


08 Mar 17 - 03:40 AM (#3843590)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


08 Mar 17 - 03:42 AM (#3843591)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


08 Mar 17 - 03:52 AM (#3843595)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 04:21 AM (#3843601)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


08 Mar 17 - 05:03 AM (#3843605)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


08 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM (#3843608)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 05:19 AM (#3843610)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


08 Mar 17 - 06:09 AM (#3843614)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

It must be very uncomfortable to have one's knickers in a twist all the while.


08 Mar 17 - 06:11 AM (#3843615)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


08 Mar 17 - 06:13 AM (#3843616)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

Or see forward to long term outcomes.


08 Mar 17 - 06:22 AM (#3843619)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM (#3843626)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Very well put Teribus, 08 Mar 17 - 02:14 AM, spot on observation and analysis, you've nailed it in one post.


08 Mar 17 - 07:09 AM (#3843633)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Mar 17 - 07:17 AM (#3843635)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


08 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM (#3843637)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM (#3843638)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Hybrids are the way to go unless you want to do a Wiggins. And no bloody Lycra!


08 Mar 17 - 08:15 AM (#3843642)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Aaaarrrghghgh !!!

Dave in Lycra ..................not something I want to consider ever again !!!


08 Mar 17 - 08:19 AM (#3843643)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

How about cling film?

:D tG


08 Mar 17 - 08:23 AM (#3843644)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

Hey, he's talking about you, jackals:

I'm calling out the loons who make Israel bashing the mother of all virtues


08 Mar 17 - 08:40 AM (#3843647)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

WTF are you on about poobad?


08 Mar 17 - 08:59 AM (#3843652)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Stick to the Lycra ............................ please!


08 Mar 17 - 09:25 AM (#3843660)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


08 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM (#3843662)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 09:49 AM (#3843665)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


08 Mar 17 - 09:59 AM (#3843666)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 10:00 AM (#3843667)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

It needs a holder for a fishing rod, Gnomes invariably have fishing rods.


08 Mar 17 - 10:03 AM (#3843669)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Actually teri it's very considerate of you to include stabilisers, he might need those when cycling home from the pub !


08 Mar 17 - 10:10 AM (#3843674)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


08 Mar 17 - 10:10 AM (#3843675)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

It's not always a fishing rod, Raggy :-D

DtG


08 Mar 17 - 11:30 AM (#3843696)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Mar 17 - 11:50 AM (#3843700)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

" 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.


08 Mar 17 - 12:21 PM (#3843704)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

I refer you to my post regarding twisted knickers, seems like they're still in a knot.

Love you, kissy, kissy


08 Mar 17 - 01:08 PM (#3843711)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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."


08 Mar 17 - 01:09 PM (#3843712)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 01:18 PM (#3843714)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


08 Mar 17 - 02:51 PM (#3843735)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


08 Mar 17 - 03:00 PM (#3843737)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 03:22 PM (#3843739)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


08 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM (#3843741)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


08 Mar 17 - 03:50 PM (#3843742)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

According to Christy Moore his Honda 50 would do a 150 on a windy day.


08 Mar 17 - 05:11 PM (#3843749)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


09 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM (#3843816)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Mar 17 - 03:42 AM (#3843821)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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 !!!


09 Mar 17 - 04:09 AM (#3843828)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Mar 17 - 04:17 AM (#3843829)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM (#3843833)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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


09 Mar 17 - 04:39 AM (#3843835)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


09 Mar 17 - 04:43 AM (#3843836)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM (#3843838)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


09 Mar 17 - 05:24 AM (#3843844)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


09 Mar 17 - 05:27 AM (#3843845)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


09 Mar 17 - 05:45 AM (#3843851)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Yay - found one!

Still wrong though. Most NORMAL people would call this pedal free version a Honda 50. You lose...

:D tG


09 Mar 17 - 06:07 AM (#3843855)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


09 Mar 17 - 06:15 AM (#3843857)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Bless my soul, never seen one of those before.


09 Mar 17 - 06:15 AM (#3843858)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM (#3843864)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!


09 Mar 17 - 06:54 AM (#3843865)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Did you wear sandals and cheesecloth when you rode it.

The public DEMAND an answer !!! Feckle, spit rant, feckle, spit, rant !!!!


09 Mar 17 - 06:55 AM (#3843866)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Mar 17 - 06:58 AM (#3843868)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

Or should that be freckled spit rant?


09 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM (#3843869)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


09 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM (#3843870)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


09 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM (#3843872)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Hello, boobs!

Is it OK if I call you "boobs?" After all, there did used to be a pair of you!


09 Mar 17 - 07:28 AM (#3843878)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

I'm sure boobs (good name that) thinks there's logic in his post but I'm not certain I can fathom it.


09 Mar 17 - 07:35 AM (#3843880)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


09 Mar 17 - 07:38 AM (#3843882)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"I'm sure boobs thinks..."



09 Mar 17 - 07:43 AM (#3843887)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

I'm not certain I can fathom it.

There is not much you can fathom from what we see in your posts.


09 Mar 17 - 07:58 AM (#3843889)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

It's just that I can't think down to your level.


09 Mar 17 - 08:14 AM (#3843893)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

It's just that I can't think

QED!


09 Mar 17 - 08:17 AM (#3843895)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

It's

Do I now win the prize for silliest quote taken out of context from the original?

:D tG


09 Mar 17 - 08:20 AM (#3843896)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

I

Think that wins it .......... you lose !


09 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM (#3843897)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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"


09 Mar 17 - 08:25 AM (#3843898)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

Damn you Kei Raggy!


09 Mar 17 - 08:28 AM (#3843901)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


09 Mar 17 - 08:36 AM (#3843903)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

I wonder ........... should we club together and buy him a bike?


09 Mar 17 - 08:51 AM (#3843910)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

I think it may be more useful getting on my bike and buying a club...

:D tG


09 Mar 17 - 09:00 AM (#3843912)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Mar 17 - 09:11 AM (#3843915)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Teribus can have my brother's old moped if he can find it. There are an awful lot of hedgerows in Cheshire, mind...


09 Mar 17 - 09:18 AM (#3843917)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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! 😂


09 Mar 17 - 10:21 AM (#3843929)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋


09 Mar 17 - 10:24 AM (#3843930)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

I think Teribus wants to give us a hand.


09 Mar 17 - 10:59 AM (#3843936)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


09 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM (#3843937)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

My Honda 50 was registration No ELG81B then moved on to bigger and faster machines.


09 Mar 17 - 11:21 AM (#3843941)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


09 Mar 17 - 11:43 AM (#3843944)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


09 Mar 17 - 12:37 PM (#3843952)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Gotta tell me mum that one, Jim.

My moped's reg was NNF41H. Wasn't overly keen on the NF bit of that!


09 Mar 17 - 01:25 PM (#3843958)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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 :-)


09 Mar 17 - 03:00 PM (#3843977)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"Gotta tell me mum that one, Jim."
She told me it Steve!!!
Jim Carroll


09 Mar 17 - 03:31 PM (#3843983)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

I'm not surprised, Jim. I've always had you down as her type, though she could give you a year or two!


10 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM (#3844039)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


10 Mar 17 - 05:50 AM (#3844042)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Mar 17 - 05:55 AM (#3844044)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


10 Mar 17 - 06:00 AM (#3844045)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


10 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM (#3844061)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


10 Mar 17 - 07:43 AM (#3844063)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


10 Mar 17 - 07:44 AM (#3844064)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

The primulas in my garden have been flowering all winter and last November the Rhododendrons were flowering on the Connemara !


10 Mar 17 - 08:16 AM (#3844071)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


10 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM (#3844077)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

"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


10 Mar 17 - 09:43 AM (#3844090)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


10 Mar 17 - 09:53 AM (#3844093)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


11 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM (#3844200)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


11 Mar 17 - 04:08 AM (#3844203)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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."


11 Mar 17 - 04:18 AM (#3844206)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 05:49 AM (#3844213)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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. 😂😂😂


11 Mar 17 - 06:27 AM (#3844216)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 06:34 AM (#3844219)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll

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


11 Mar 17 - 09:32 AM (#3844242)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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!


11 Mar 17 - 09:38 AM (#3844244)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


11 Mar 17 - 09:46 AM (#3844247)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


11 Mar 17 - 11:29 AM (#3844262)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

Wonder what birds, plants, mopeds, recipes or supermarket special deals we'll hear about now?


11 Mar 17 - 11:54 AM (#3844270)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 11:56 AM (#3844271)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


11 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM (#3844274)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 12:24 PM (#3844276)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM (#3844277)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


11 Mar 17 - 12:31 PM (#3844278)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

£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.


11 Mar 17 - 12:36 PM (#3844282)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 01:36 PM (#3844292)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.


11 Mar 17 - 02:09 PM (#3844297)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


11 Mar 17 - 03:15 PM (#3844306)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


11 Mar 17 - 03:18 PM (#3844307)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"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!


11 Mar 17 - 03:39 PM (#3844310)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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)


11 Mar 17 - 04:06 PM (#3844316)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


11 Mar 17 - 04:08 PM (#3844317)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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.


11 Mar 17 - 04:12 PM (#3844318)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

"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???


11 Mar 17 - 04:36 PM (#3844323)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

Bellend? 🤣


11 Mar 17 - 04:42 PM (#3844324)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

My it's gone quiet Teribus, I imagine that I can hear the small birds singing in the trees.   :0)


11 Mar 17 - 04:58 PM (#3844326)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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...


11 Mar 17 - 05:01 PM (#3844328)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


11 Mar 17 - 05:13 PM (#3844330)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton

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)


11 Mar 17 - 05:32 PM (#3844336)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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..."


12 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM (#3844410)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


12 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM (#3844416)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


12 Mar 17 - 05:12 AM (#3844420)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


12 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM (#3844444)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

I can't read sandals, Dave, but I can wear the Guardian. 🤣


12 Mar 17 - 08:31 AM (#3844448)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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".


12 Mar 17 - 09:03 AM (#3844450)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

I think all these points have been discussed at length already, do you have a NEW point to raise ...............

................... no? thought not.


12 Mar 17 - 11:57 AM (#3844476)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

*Yawn*


12 Mar 17 - 12:20 PM (#3844480)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)

Bobad, maybe you can look at something more current, and somewhere there is much more of problem, such as Les Républicains.


12 Mar 17 - 02:48 PM (#3844504)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


12 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM (#3844515)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


12 Mar 17 - 03:51 PM (#3844516)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

"...in fact Jews are targeted more than all other religious groups combined in most of the western world today."

Prove it.


12 Mar 17 - 04:16 PM (#3844519)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)

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.


12 Mar 17 - 05:39 PM (#3844521)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad

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.


12 Mar 17 - 06:57 PM (#3844526)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


12 Mar 17 - 07:23 PM (#3844531)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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".


12 Mar 17 - 07:27 PM (#3844534)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


12 Mar 17 - 07:47 PM (#3844544)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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?


12 Mar 17 - 07:55 PM (#3844545)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.

Evidence? EVIDENCE???

We don't got to show you no steenkin' EVIDENCE!

These are Trumpists we're dealing with, Steve.


12 Mar 17 - 08:20 PM (#3844547)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!]


12 Mar 17 - 08:51 PM (#3844549)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


12 Mar 17 - 09:08 PM (#3844550)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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!


13 Mar 17 - 02:57 AM (#3844580)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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?


13 Mar 17 - 04:03 AM (#3844584)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

PS Shaw - If indeed you do want figures (Which I very much doubt) look them up for yourself.


13 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM (#3844587)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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


13 Mar 17 - 04:51 AM (#3844588)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: David Carter (UK)

You havn't looked at India though have you, Teribus.


13 Mar 17 - 05:28 AM (#3844601)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash

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.


13 Mar 17 - 06:19 AM (#3844610)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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,,...


13 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM (#3844612)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

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.


13 Mar 17 - 06:34 AM (#3844613)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus

When did India become part of "the western world" Mr Carter (UK)?


13 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM (#3844615)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw

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.


13 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM (#3844616)
Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome

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 y