BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:10 AM

"Jim if that last rant was aimed at me perhaps you should study yourself closely in a mirror. and clean up your spelling and preferably your language." - Iains

Elicited the following response from Jim Carroll:

"Since you have had the bad manners to mention it, typos (of which I make a few due to my idiosyncratic keyboard) are usually used to avoid points people cant handle and my language is my own ****** business and not yours." - Jim Carroll

Still lashing out blindly I see Carroll, anyone who disagrees with you or criticises you, but it does show rather good justification for the advice proffered by Iains above.

As far as the Labour Party goes:

Is it true that Diane Abbott has only given Corbyn 12 months to turn things round (Tories with the greatest lead over Labour ever?).

The Trades Unions, Labour's, and Corbyn's biggest backers are winning hearts and minds right, left and centre down South at the moment.

Is it true that the Party under Corbyn's leadership is totally out of touch with traditional Labour voters?

Nice to know that Jim Carroll over there in Miltown Malby is "supporting" Corbyn, joined the Labour Party yet Jim? Or is your "support" merely empty waffle?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:11 AM

Jim,
I take it we've finished with you "smear and lie"/

No.
It was a smear and a lie like everything else in that disgusting post.
You try it every time you lose an argument.

DtG,
To say someone in a debate is using personal stuff instead of the issues is to criticise.
Sorry, but it is.
Why do you ignore Jim using personal stuff instead of the issues?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Keith, for the last time, I was not criticising any individual. Using personal stuff in a debate is a distraction and may be wrong but people have done it for ever. the first public debate I went to (1969 De La Salle 6th form society) I have no idea what the debate was about but it was won by the person who found out his opponent had had pretty peach body lotion rubbed into his chest by a girl from Adelphi House. If there was any criticism at all it was for use of the tactic by anyone.

If I may quote Teribus on this - Are you honestly stating that you know what I think better than I do myself? Utterly preposterous, your ignorance and arrogance is beyond belief.

On top of all this, it is perfectly acceptable to criticise or not criticise anyone or anything should I so chose and anyone is allowed to criticise me. In fact, I was criticised by said Teribus for "ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains" but I do not see anyone, nor do I expect anyone, to bring up the issue on my behalf. We are all capable of fighting our own battles. I think.

Now can we please get on with a politcal debate, something that Iains, Jim and I seem to be trying to do, rather than discuss personalities?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 09:16 AM

Jim. As I have said to you before, your take on events is either black or white, mine is more the acceptance of shadows in shades of grey. I do not believe there is any form of true democracy in the world. I do not think what we have now is significantly worse than what went before.
The early forms of so called democracy in the UK had a very restricted section of society that could vote. It is also true to say they were of a similar class, education, aspiration, sex and outlook. Today the electorate represents all sectors of society yet many feel disenfranchised because the elected government apparently ignores them.
Yet the electorate just sit blindly in front of the TV and allow the circus to continue. The poll tax riots towards the end of Thatchers reign were the only time in decades that people got off their backsides to protest. In France the farming lobby brings the country to it's knees with thousands of tractors on the least whiff of a rumour that something may happen they do not like.
I believe you recently re quoted(jefferson) that we get the government we deserve.
Unfortunately that is very true. To have true democracy there is a need for healthy riots now and again to clearly demonstrate what is acceptable to the people and what most definitely is not.
The media is the ideal medium for holding government to account. Yet since the days of Robin Day public interrogations of ministers have had the impact of damp lettuce.
Besides babbling in the house answering prepared questions the Prime Minister should be dragged in front of our tv screens and grilled on a weekly basis by fully trained terriers.( perhaps Paxman on steroids or a younger beast of bolsover) If we make no effort to force government to be accountable, then by what magic will change ever occur?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:55 AM

I've just as a brilliant idea. Stemming from Iains' idea of dragging ministers to the TV studios to be grilled on a weekly basis we could turn it into the sort of media circus that everyone seems to love nowadays. A sort of cross between question time, strictly come dancing and the I'm a celebrity. Maybe a group of MPs are each questioned over vital issues every week and the public votes as to which ones lose their jobs. The losers could be sent to an island where they are fed a diet of Ant, Dec and witchery grubs while the winners go on to perform the Rumba with Teresa May or Jeremy Corbyn.

Yea, I can see it all...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:11 AM

"As I have said to you before, your take on events is either black or white"
Good job I don't take a supporter of mass murdered Assad too seriously then Iains
Have I said we get the Government we deserve - must have been on the Poitín that day!
As they never fulfil the election promises they make at election time, we have no choice in what government we get - we vote for one thing and get the other.
If we live under "democracy" somebody should start explaining how it works - buggered if I can work it out
"Yet the electorate just sit blindly in front of the TV and allow the circus to continue. "
That is incredibly patronising - the electorate are willing enough to participate when they see something happening on their behalf
After decades of that not happening and having no voice to change it, they have become cynical
If they took to the streets with banners demanding their say, people like you would be up on your chairs screaming - what was Maggie's phrase - "The enemy within".
We can't win, with you people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:15 AM

I recommend a thorough tasering for every evasive response.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Jim. You take anyone rejecting your mindset on Syria as being an Assad supporter. That is an absolute distortion as you well know. You also seem to have a blind faith in accepting anything publicised by amnesty Int. They have about as much independance as the so called white helmets. All funding comes with attached agenda, it would be rather naive to believe anything else. Even greenpeace have their flaws.
Many UN agencies are a waste of space. They are very good at parking their brand new landruiser 4x4s outside 5 star hotels and living high off the hog inside. I have seen it firsthand in a number of countries.
What their mission is, apart from squandering money, escapes me.
As I have said I do not believe Assad is an angel but neither do I accept that he is automatically guilty of all the atrocities he is accused of.
I feel confident the Arab Spring was both organised, funded and encouraged by external forces. The same ones responsible for the ongoing war in the country.
    There are no heroes and no angels in Syria and sadly modern urban warfare creates a human tragedy on a massive scale. Furthermore it is occurring all over the middle east in a number of countries and I have no doubt the next intended domino is Iran.
Like Libya, Syria was a fully functioning country where any street was safe to walk down any time of the day or night. Instead of reiterating the same old tired mantras perhaps you should study why all these middle eastern countries were destabilised_ who by, and for what purpose? There are no absolute answers on offer therefore it cannot be painted in black or white responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

"You also seem to have a blind faith in accepting anything publicised by amnesty Int. "
As far as I know, Amnesty it totally neutral and have never been shown to be otherwise - you might like to enlighten me.
Apart from their reports, Assad's history is fairly transparent and well covered elsewhere.
Even if that were the case, the butchery of the citizens of Homs, that was covered by the world media says when needs to be said - and then there is the use o chemicals on civilians - and now we have accounts of refugees fleeing Aleppo being cut down by Government forces and Russians
Are you really writing off all this as 'propaganda' - good luck with that one!
You say you are not defending Assad - what else are you doing?
Sorry - we have nothing to say to each other - don't thinks that matters too much to you - you have a soul mate in our resident Nazi
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

Amen to the grey area point, Iains. I guess you can see that there is merit in what most people say on here and truth in most of it as well. But like I said on the thread about the press, the truth being presented is not always the whole picture. We need to accept the points of view and differing truths of many people and then decide which, on balance, rings the truest with ourselves. It becomes very frustrating when you can see both sides of an argument and want to step in but, as I have learned to my regret, it is not something you can do without the risk of getting hit by both sides :-( We can but try.

Cheers

DtG

PS - Like the taser idea. Should sharpen up the debate :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:20 PM

D the G you can always light the blue touch paper and run, or see if the remote control will operate a tasar!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM

Jim you are living in a cocoon. I suggest you get about a bit and see how the real world operates. I suppose in your rose tinted world "human shields" and "collateral damage" do not occur and I suppose you subscribe to the view point of good and bad terrorists as well.
And I suppose using depleted uranium munitions in Syria by the illegal coalition airstrikes are quite legitimate in your book. Giving rise to nano sized particles with a half life of 4.47 billion years (without reckoning in U235 contaminants) getting ready to dance about in the slightest breeze to be inhaled by all and sundry. It is quite acceptable in your book to use these weapons of mass destruction because they are being used by the "goodies"
Your simplistic world view is wrong, dangerous and pathetic. Typical armchair posturing by a person that knows nothing of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM

Keith, for the last time, I was not criticising any individual. Using personal stuff in a debate is a distraction and may be wrong

It is wrong, so accusing of it is a criticism whether you realise that obvious fact or not.

Of course you are entitled to criticise anyone you want, but it tells us something about you that you ignore a far worse example of personal attack from a member of your little gang, while posting about a comparatively miniscule infringement from Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM

I am sure Teribus is capable of fighting his own battles. If he thinks I have criticised him I am sure he will say so. For the record, I have no gang, little or otherwise, but even if I did, I have also chosen to ignore Teribus' criticism of me as detailed earlier. Does that make him part of the same 'gang'? Now, Keith, will you please stop harping on about your own incorrect interpretation of what I actualy said. I am sure it is boring everyone else as much as me. If you feel so inclined continue by PM but don't expect me to add anything further to what I have already said.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM

BTW - You have not even addressed the fact that I have already said If there was any criticism at all it was for use of the tactic by anyone. Do you just not realise what that means or are you deliberately ignoring that fact when you say I have not levelled the criticism at anyone else?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:21 PM

"Jim you are living in a cocoon."
Not me Bro
If you are going to dismiss reports as propaganda you have to provide proof - not accusations of naivety
You have had the reported facts from organisations like Amnesty (don't think I've ever come across anybody who has accused them of being prejudiced).
Now - if you want to disprove those, and in fact what we were watching on our T.Vs not so long ago - show us where we have gone wrong with your own set of facts
You really are new to open debating, aren't you/
This is really second form debating stuff you are coming out with
WHY SHOULDANYBODY ACCEPT YOUR CLAIMS OTEHRWISE
TIME
GUARDIAN
THE RECORD
DAILY MAIL
VANITY FAIR
Any more for the Skylark - this is getting reaaaaaaly booooring
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 09:19 PM

Yo Greg, re your smear piece by the Israel hating Omri Boehm:

A Times opinion piece fabricated and erased the positions of American supporters of Israel, including Alan Dershowitz, in order to link Zionism to the alt-right

On November 20, the Zionist Organization of America, a small hard-right pro-Israel group, held its annual gala. To the chagrin of many in the American Jewish community, Donald Trump's newly-appointed senior strategist Stephen Bannon was scheduled to attend. Outside, scores of Jews protested. And inside, celebrated Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who had been scheduled to speak before Bannon had been invited, took the opportunity to issue a pointed warning to those in attendance.

"There is an equally disturbing trend that you might not be as happy to hear about, and that is the anti-Muslim and often bigoted extreme right that is pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist," the Harvard Law professor said. "I'm a little worried today that there are Jews in many parts of the world that are being seduced by the hard right. We must not become complicit in bigotry, whether it is from the right or the left… Being pro-Israel can never serve as an excuse for bigotry against any other group."



Why Did the New York Times Publish Fake News About Trump, Zionism, and Alan Dershowitz?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:33 AM

Jim
I am beginning to think your grasp of the "big picture" must be because a 5 year old kiddie's colouring book was used as your template.
I see you are resorting to the red paintbrush and the blue paintbrush again. Was there not a song about toothbrushes that probably matches your mindset?
You remind me of a conversation by Aragorn in Lord of the Rings where he is saying that certain people in the Shire disparaged him, little realizing just what was occurring just outside their borders. You strike me as being one of those hobbits. I have yet to decide if you are merely a halfling or a halfwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:30 AM

Iains
You really haven't got the hang of this, have you
You put up evidence of your claims – we discuss it
I put up evidence of my claims – we discuss it
We either reach a level of agreement or agree to disagree
That's the way adults debate – neme calling doesn't enter into it
I suggest you stick to Tolkein
Dont ring me, I'll ring you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

Iains, his house built on sand, is indulging in similar behaviour in the climate change thread, unfortunately, having pops at people for what he sees as their lack of comprehension when they don't agree with him and indulging in sarcasm. He has a good teacher here, hasn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

Left Foot Forward today.
"The Labour Party has led the way on race equality but the Conservative party has done more to improve BAME representation in the last two electoral cycles than Labour has done in more than two decades.
Labour must take urgent action to eradicate any discrimination in its ranks,"
http://leftfootforward.org/2016/12/labours-proud-record-as-a-home-for-bame-voters-is-at-risk/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:33 AM

Well I suggest that anyone reading Keith's misleading post, with a quote that is completely unrepresentative of the article, should follow the link and read the whole thing. It's a well-written, constructive and very supportive piece offering a view on the direction the party should be taking in a changing world. Incidentally, at the bottom of the piece there's a link you can follow to an article which addresses the idiotic Sajid Javid on the matter of the proposed oath. It's a nice sideswipe at Tory self-interest and discrimination which knock Labour's imperfections in those departments into a cocked hat. Keep the leftie links coming, Keith, but do try to put a more honest gloss on them. I know it's hard for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM

Alan Dershowitz, Bubo? Really? You're going to give me Allen Fricking Dershowitz???

That quote from him, considering his statements and actions over the last 25 years is a bigger whopper than anything Trump has EVER come up with.

Yet you actually believe him, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:25 AM

Oh, and I'm sure Omri Boehm is one of your self-hating, anti-semitic Jews, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM

Steve,

Well I suggest that anyone reading Keith's misleading post, with a quote that is completely unrepresentative of the article, should follow the link and read the whole thing.

I hope they do and see which of us has more honestly represented the piece whose title was, "Labour's proud record as a home for bame voters is at risk."
Me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:58 AM

Perhaps professor you could enlighten us about Conservative or UKip Policies to bring more BAME minorities into the decision making process.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM

No I could not Rag, but the author of my linked piece is aware of some.
Do you think he is lying Rag?
Why would he?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM

I've no idea professor, I was hoping you could enlighten the assembled company to the efforts the Conservative and UKip parties where making in the same regard.



Perhaps they are not making any efforts, if this is the case I would hope, in your strenuous efforts for justice for all people, you would castigate them in the same way as you would the labour party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:12 PM

I was hoping you could enlighten the assembled company to the efforts the Conservative and UKip parties where making in the same regard.

Why?

Perhaps they are not making any efforts, if this is the case I would hope, in your strenuous efforts for justice for all people, you would castigate them in the same way as you would the labour party.

I have not castigated Labour over this. I just quoted a black Labour member who did.

Perhaps the Tories are not making any efforts, but the same member was quite clear that they are making a lot more effort than his party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM

Jim

That's the way adults debate – neme calling doesn't enter into it.

If that is the case why accuse me of being a misogynist and when that does not work trying to correct my grammar and punctuation.
The fact I do not agree with most of your postings does not give you the right to give me an insulting label as the one above. And you are a fine one to talk about grammar, spelling and punctuation.

are you another Shaw? a case of do as I say, not as I do!

Stop the name calling and I will continue with the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:04 PM

Very tiresome that, Iains. You're beginning to sound like you have an inferiority complex. Try not to demonstrate that it's justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM

Why?

Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity.

It would seem reasonable that if you feel so strongly about such issues that you should also castigate other political parties if they were guilty of the same "offence"

If, as you suggest, the Conservative Party are not making any efforts in this regard you should vilify them to an even greater extent.

Merely reporting the words of a third party in this instance is meaningless unless you have a point to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM

Well Steve if that is your best effort at a riposte you disappoint me.
Your report card for this term will be "must try harder"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:26 PM

Good job then that you're not one of those sandal-wearing pinko leftie teachers, Iains. My reports were generally written by guys who knew what they were talking about.

Good post, Raggytash. You've got Keith perfectly summed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:40 PM

"are you another Shaw? a case of do as I say, not as I do!"
You really aren't going to respond to the facts , aren't you?
This is all just bluster - you are answering nothing.
Doesn't matter anyway - who wants to know what somebody who supports the atrocities committed by this monster thinks?
Another aspect of debating is that failure to respond is answer enough.
MORE FACTS to IGNORE
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:51 AM

Rag,
Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity.

No, but this thread is for discussing the Labour Party, and a group of you keep denying that certain problems exist.

It would seem reasonable that if you feel so strongly about such issues that you should also castigate other political parties if they were guilty of the same "offence"

Sorry, but I do not feel strongly about such issues.


If, as you suggest, the Conservative Party are not making any efforts in this regard you should vilify them to an even greater extent.

Sorry again, but I never suggested any such thing.
The member I quoted was clear that they are making more effort than Labour.
Is there any reason to disbelieve him?

Merely reporting the words of a third party in this instance is meaningless unless you have a point to make.

The point I was making was that here is yet another member accusing Labour of prejudice. Something that many here keep denying.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:58 AM

Well professor you have often been accused of prejudice and I think you will find that you deny it. Vehemently.


Are you perhaps coming clean and admitting your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:05 AM

Rag, I am not prejudiced so of course I deny it along with all the other names I get called by people who can't reply to what I actually say.

Steve, in what sense did Rag's silly string of posts sum me up?
Every one of his points has been flattened.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:15 AM

"Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity."
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny, and have posted claim after claim that this happened without producing a single hint of "a serious problem" or an example of that antisemitism
When you were unable to do so, you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.
You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:21 AM

Like I said you deny it.

To quote one of your irritating phrases .......... YOU LOSE!!!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:53 AM

Jim,
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny,

No I have not. I have merely quoted a number of members including the leadership who state that it is a serious problem for Labour.
I do think that proves the case though.

you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.

You keep repeating this lie Jim.
They revealed it to the Party leadership to deal with.

You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.

Rag, do you not care how stupid you make yourself?
Your attempted attack on me had not one point you could make stand up.
I have made no claims.
I just quoted members and leaders saying it was a serious problem for Labour.
Unlike you, I doubt they are all lying. Why would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:55 AM

Sorry,

Jim,
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny,

No I have not. I have merely quoted a number of members including the leadership who state that it is a serious problem for Labour.
I do think that proves the case though.

you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.

You keep repeating this lie Jim.
They revealed it to the Party leadership to deal with.

You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.

I have made no claims.
I just quoted members and leaders saying it was a serious problem for Labour.
Unlike you, I doubt they are all lying. Why would they?

Rag, do you not care how stupid you make yourself?
Your attempted attack on me had not one point you could make stand up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM

"No I have not."
Yes you have - and you deliberately distorted what was being said, or refused to accept the track records of the people making those claims in order to do so.
The fact that you have never at any time produced examples or numbers of people hasn't stopped you from persisting in your claim
You broke your arse trying to prove Labour had an antisemitism problem and wereonly able to produce people with their own agenda - anti Corbyn right-wingers or those who were part of the Anti BDS movement.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR PARTY - THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THE ACCUSATIONS THAT THEE WAS - THAT WAS ESQUIRED INTO AND DEALT WITH
YOU WILL NOW CONTINUE TO CLAIM THERE IS (hope the bookies is open!!)
"No I have not. I"
Did you not claim that the Jewish members refused to describe antisemitism because of the love they held for their party?
Please say you didn't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM

"No I have not."
Yes you have - and you deliberately distorted what was being said, or

If that is true, produce an example.
Good luck with that Jim!

The fact that you have never at any time produced examples or numbers of people hasn't stopped you from persisting in your claim

I HAVE NOT MADE ANY CLAIM!!
I just quoted members, senior officials and the leadership.
I do now believe them. Do you claim they all lie??

Did you not claim that the Jewish members refused to describe antisemitism because of the love they held for their party?

No. I said the reported it to the leadership of the Party to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Whatever professor, you are not worth the time (and slight) effort.

You have been proven beyond any doubt, and on so many occasions, to be prejudiced, a racist, a liar, dishonest and utterly devoid of any integrity.

Bye Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:58 AM

For Steve and Jim

A little festive music. Since trolling is the only counter argument you appear to offer. Here is a little toon to skip along home to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLp_Hh6DKWc

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

There is so much wrong with your last post Iains that I don't know where to start. Firstly, Grieg's Troll king had a hall full of Trolls, Goblins and Gnomes (No, I wasn't there). The slide show in your link seems to pay far more attention to Tolkien's Moria which had a Dwarf king. Very poor attention to detail and lazy imagery. Secondly, trolling is not arguing with you, it is deliberately goading someone into an argument to provoke a reaction. Something that I have noticed far more from yourself than the others. Finally, neither Trolls, Dwarves nor Gnomes skip anywhere. If you are going to insult people make sure you get it right.

Thank you :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:26 AM

" just quoted members, senior officials and the leadership."
You have ben told why they considered it serious - why will yopu not respond to that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM

D the G.
a splendid effort. I enjoyed reading your put down. A first class effort

Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

"Since trolling is the only counter argument you appear to offer. "
You have just whined about being insulted by Dave - the remark about my "trolling" is extremely insulting
Are you reserving the right to insult people for yourself?
"Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?."
Probably for the same reason you refuse to answer points put to you and try to bury them with waffle
A supporter of Assad's torture like yourself is very insultable
Jim Carroll