BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 01:51 PM

"I will put up another thread's worth when I get time"

Just the sake of honesty put up your own transgressions as well Jim. Oh hang on a minute "honesty" - is something you know nothing about, as far as you are concerned it is a totally alien concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 03:02 PM

"Just the sake of honesty put up your own transgressions as well Jim."
Your job - you really are a lazy individual.
Been there Bobad - Israel is not The Jews
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 03:15 PM

As ever, Keith, you can only appeal to authority. Never think for yourself. You're scared of having opinions of your own. I'll tell you what, I'll compromise. I'll bow down before Peston if you can demonstrate to me that he's still alive and has written a book on it in the last thirty years that may be found on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. Deal or no deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 16 - 04:18 PM

Jim, I must point you to the second line of the second post on this thread. It was a promise you made not to 'nause up' this thread. Now, I am sure there excuses a plenty from all for doing just that but, as I keep saying, it is not who starts hostilities but who finishes them that is the better person.

Not telling anyone what to do. Just reminding all concerned that this thread was started to replace one that had already gone bad ways.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:21 AM

"I must point you to the second line of the second post on this thread. It was a promise you made not to 'nause up' this thread."
If you are referring to my attempting to stop Teribus's gallop, I feel this forum is being damaged by his behaviour - not just this thread - and if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others, he will continue to infect this forum.
The administrators appear not to be interested and Teribus seems set on course to continue.
It may well be both our faults, but I can't say I'm not more than a little disappointed that you should point a finger and allocate blame.
Ah well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:28 AM

Shouls read:
and if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others - put up for all to see in all its glory...
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM

As ever, Keith, you can only appeal to authority. Never think for yourself. You're scared of having opinions of your own.

Only an egotist on an industrial scale would think that he just knows everything already.
Peston is the Political Editor of ITV News and host of the weekly political discussion show Peston on Sunday. From February 2006 until March 2014, he was the Business Editor for BBC News.
Of course he is better informed than both of us.
I acknowledge that fact. You deny it.

It was a BY-ELECTION, Keith. Precipitated by a Tory idiot. Geddit? Not normal! Extrapolate ye not!

What did the MP who successfully fought and won it say?
"claim by the victor Sarah Olney that the result is a verdict on Brexit"
And her leader,
"The Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said the result was "historic" and a verdict on a so-called "hard" Brexit "

But what do they know about it compared to you?
Right Steve?

I have opinions based on facts.
Yours are just whims from an empty head.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:43 AM

Jim,
No examples of genuine antisemitism have ever been produced.

Naz Shah.

Virtually all accusations have come from supporters of Israel

Errr, "The Labour Party supports Israel." (Deputy Leader)

or political opponents of Corbyn.

Almost the entire PLP are political opponents of Corbyn, so not surprising.

All accusations have been criticisms of Israel

Not true.

These attacks started within two months of Corbyn announcing support for B.D.S.

The problem only arose under Corbyn's leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

I accuse you of only ever appealing to authority and what do you do? Almost give me a biography of your latest authority! Very funny. And you call ME empty-headed.

Naz Shah did not utter a single antisemitic word. If you disagree, tell me which words. The antisemitic words, not her defending herself. Alternatively, bugger off and find yourself another stupid obsession. Your antisemitism misunderstandings have been done to death. In your heart of dishonest hearts you know bloody well that antisemitism is no more rife in the Labour Party than anywhere else, probably a lot less so in fact. "Naz Shah" my arse. Go on, entertain us, Keith. Why not have a pot at the LibDem leader for opposing abortion and gay marriage? That would be good!

No it wouldn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:25 AM

Steve, I spoke of people voting on Brexit and not party allegiances.
You ridiculed me for it, suggesting I got it from "racist mates" at the pub.

I then supported my stance with references to people in a position to know the facts.
You were wrong to ridicule me.
It was you who was out of touch.

Your opinions come from no-where and you can never substantiate them.
Mine are based on facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:31 AM

Steve,
Naz Shah did not utter a single antisemitic word

That is your opinion only, and what is that worth?
The NEC found it ant Semitic. They suspended her for it.
Shah herself acknowledged that her statements were anti Semitic and based on ignorance.
Once again you imagine you know better than them, based on nothing but your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM

Not allocating blame at all, Jim. I think you may have missed the line in my post that makes that clear.

"Now, I am sure there excuses a plenty from all for doing just that "

Just trying to keep the peace.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM

"Just trying to keep the peace."
Too late - too late, the maiden cried!!
"Naz Shah."
So we have one example out of a membership of how many?
I think that makes my point perfectly
"The Labour Party supports Israel."
We all support Israel as a Stae and as an ideal - what we don't support is the acts of terrorism by the Israeli regime - and you know this
I should, of course have said "supports the Israeli regime" and could have added, is part of their propaganda campaign
Naz Shah took up the Israeli claim that it's actions were "Jewish" and also a jokey suggestion by a Jewish writer that Israel should be moved to America
Both were stupid.
Israel justifies its terrorist activities are on behalf of the Jewish People (while accusing Jews who do not agree with them as "self hating")
Shah was wrong to pick up on that Antisemitic lie - if she is an antisemitee, so is Israel.
She took what was a joke to be a serious suggestion for a solution to the conflict - that was stupid - I don't believe it to be antisemitic.
"All accusations have been criticisms of Israel" - "Not true."
Then if they weren't, you have to specify what they were.
"The problem only arose under Corbyn's leadership."
Of course it did - Corbyn supported B.D.S. - within six weeks the Israelis
accused the Party of Antisemitism
The delegation visited Israel - within three weeks those accusations beban again.
We now have agreement - antisemitism in the Labour party boils down to 1 possible example.
Lat's move on - unless you are able to produce more (hopefully without antisemitically blaming the whole thing on a Jewish Parliamentary plot to remain silent
There - that's not a bad start to the day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

I asked you for the precise antisemitic words, Keith, but, as usual, instead of giving a straight answer you give me the opinions of almost everyone in the world. Appeals to authority. The words, Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Teribus's gallop = Member since 11.02.2002 with 8,580 posts.

Carroll's gallop = Member since 6.12.2007 with 17,480 posts.

Even your "pals" are getting tired of you Jim. And you are right Jim, NOT ONCE have I ever been admonished by any Moderator with regard to what I have posted on this forum. Can the same be said of you or your pals?

"I feel this forum is being damaged by his behaviour" - Jim Carroll Fortunately for this forum Max runs things not you, your feelings, or your pals.

"if he isn't stopped by having his contempt for others - put up for all to see in all its glory, he will continue to infect this forum."

Your blatantly biased, bigoted, narrow minded, hate fuelled bile does more to infect this forum than anything anyone else has ever posted - "if he isn't stopped" - you sanctimonious prat, who elected you to the position of deciding who can and who cannot be a member? This all part of your "pecking order" - believer in "socialist equality" my arse - doesn't take much to make the mask slip does it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:50 AM

Perfect post From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

"Even your "pals" are getting tired of you Jim."
Does any of this prove anything Teribus?
Your failure to provide any back up for anything you say says all that is needed.
Answer something with evidence and you will have taken the first step - sticks and stones are childish and prove nothing - but at least you have your little TROLL to keep you warm.
Now let's continue this discussion like adults and leave this to the schoolyard where it belongs and stop fucking up threads.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 09:40 AM

"This all part of your "pecking order" "
Nice to see one of my jokes hit home though
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 11:44 AM

Naz Shah says her anti-semitic posts were ignorant

Now then Steve tell us all how you know better than Naz Shah herself what she said and what she meant when she said it. Tell us all how the entire Labour NEC who investigated the matter were all less informed on the matter than retired school teacher Steve Shaw. They investigated the matter fully and suspended Naz Shaw until she acknowledged her error and then publicly apologised for posting what she did.

As far as this goes, I will accept as real the information I get from the principals themselves, not the ill-informed opinion of a biased third party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Well, Cap'n' Puggers, let's consider what you would would think of any other Labour politician who made a pronouncement about just about anything in the world. You'd believe every word, wouldn't you, take the whole lot on board as if it were gospel delivered from on high.

NOT.

Here we are, a bunch of politicos in a party you hate, making a pronouncement, and you believe every word of it, the reason being that it fits your anti-Labour-so-let's-whack-up-any-internal-row-they're-having-just-like-the-Daily-Mail-does-and-this-antisemitism-shit-will-do-very-nicely. Naz Shah is a political careerist. She retracted and grovelled and beat her breast chanting mea culpa TO SAVE HER OWN ARSE. Well, unless you think we Labourites are above such chicanery. Which you bloody well don't, and you know it.

I won't ask you to get real because I feel sorry for you and don't want to ask too much of you all in one go. Go and get your tea. See you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

"Now then Steve tell us all how you know better than Naz Shah herself what she said and what she meant when she said "
Naz Shah is a politician who wanted to keep her job, just as is Boris Johnson when he apoligised for his racism
Any estimation of what both of their apologies mean must be taken with that in mind, though it's far easier to arrive at the opinion that suits best.
That still remains at one Labour politician who may or my not be guilty of antisemitism out 555,000 members - a serious problem indeed!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 12:52 PM

Exactement, Jim. But Keith and Teribus are about as honest with themselves as, er, the average politician. You can't tell 'em, though. The ideological fog gets in the way. At least they're clever enough not to fall for my booby trap of asking them for the exact "antisemitic" words. They damn well know there aren't any, that's why!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

'ill informed opinion of biased third parties' I wonder if he means the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

Naz Shah had already been reinstated when she said in Parliament that her statements were anti-Semitic, and acknowledged the role of Jewish friends who explained Jewish history to her.
But you are right. The NEC suspended her for her anti-Semitic statements and she had to retract and apologise for them.
She then went further in Parliament.
If you disagree with the NEC that her statements were anti-Semitic, it is your definition that is at fault.
They most likely work to the same definition as the Police, which is the EUMC definition that you refute Steve.
You are on your own in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

He don't mean me, Raggytash. I'm just a retired sandal-wearing* Guardian-reading sunset pinko leftie lentil-munching science teacher. Maybe he meant himself, a badly-educated Captain Pugwash clone, sailing the mighty oceans defending the world from those rotten Cuban nasties (unless he was below-deck all the time in the laundry making a few bob doing the lads' dhobies, of course. Think he'll tell us?)

*No socks, so don't accuse me. I won't stand by to be insulted. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

(Heheh. This is getting to be fun). The exact "antisemitic" words, Keith, is ALL I ask! And yes, it's a booby trap!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:33 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 12:27 PM

Well, Cap'n' Puggers, let's consider what you would would think of any other Labour politician who made a pronouncement about just about anything in the world. You'd believe every word, wouldn't you, take the whole lot on board as if it were gospel delivered from on high.

NOT.

Who is Cap'n' Puggers Shaw??? That you calling people names - Jom doesn't like that.

Now that we have got that out of the way the rest of that crap is not what this is all about is it?

It is not a simple matter of what one Labour MP said is it. It is not about what one Labour MP said and I believed at all is it?

It is about what one Labour MP said when she wasn't even an MP that others considered was anti-Semitic and she was reported on after she HAD become an MP. The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party which consists of the following:

Leader of the Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn MP

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Tom Watson MP

Treasurer
Diana Holland

Opposition Front Bench
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Jon Trickett MP
Kate Osamor MP

EPLP Leader
Glenis Willmott MEP (Chair)
Young Labour
Jasmin Beckett
Trade Unions
Keith Birch (UNISON)
Jamie Bramwell (UCATT)
Jennie Formby (UNITE)
Andi Fox (TSSA)
Jim Kennedy (Unite)
Andy Kerr (CWU)
Paddy Lillis (USDAW)
Martin Mayer (UNITE)
Pauline McCarthy (BFAWU)
Wendy Nichols (UNISON)
Cath Speight (GMB)
Mary Turner (GMB)
Socialist Societies and BAME Labour
James Asser (Socialist Societies)
Keith Vaz MP (BAME Labour)

CLPs
Ann Black
Christine Shawcroft
Claudia Webbe
Darren Williams
Pete Willsman
Rhea Wolfson
Labour Councillors
Cllr Nick Forbes
Cllr Alice Perry

PLP/EPLP
Margaret Beckett MP
George Howarth MP
Shabana Mahmood MP

Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour
Kezia Dugdale MSP (Leader of the Scottish Labour Party)
Alun Davies AM (Welsh Labour Representative)

Then had to investigate the incident and they found a case to be answered. Basically "Numbnuts" (As you are in a name calling frame of mind) if they, all Labour Party stalwarts looking to the Labour Party's best interests, found that there was a case to answer - WHY the hell shouldn't I believe them?? As previously explained they know a damned sight more about the workings of the Labour Party than you do.

Unlike YOU I am not driven by ANY particular political ideology as you and Jim Carroll seem to think. Unlike you I have never been a member of ANY political Party - I tend to think things out for myself, I do not require to be told what clichéd ideological long extinct party line to stick to as seems to be the case with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 01:35 PM

I'm just a retired sandal-wearing* Guardian-reading sunset pinko leftie lentil-munching EX-science teacher.

Thanks for that Shaw, as a description that will do nicely, especially as you provided it yourself (Whenever used you can hardly complain about it - same as Jom really).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:44 PM

Steve Shaw - 07 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

"The exact "antisemitic" words"

Question best directed at Naz Shah and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party don't you think Shaw - Keith A after all only reported what they themselves said. Your argument is with them not Keith A.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

"Naz Shah had already been reinstated when she said in Parliament that her statements were anti-Semitic"
It was part of the agreement of her reinstatement - that's how these things are done.
Isn't it nice to be discussing one case of antisemitism in the Labour Party rather than the "serious problem" that it was claimed.
"What a difference a day makes" (somebody is going to have to explain how to insert musical notes sometime"
"EUMC"
Where does claiming that Jews have entered into a pact of silence and refused to describe antisemitism Keit?
For that matter, where does Israel's claiming that all criticisms of her policy are antisemitic and all Jews who disagree with it are self-hating?
I don't expect an answer, but it's fun listening to the silence!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:51 PM

Except that we all know how irritable you become if anyone dares to diss Maggie. Very defensive you get: "Go on, blame Thatcher for that as well!" (caricature intended, not a verbatim quote).

"They found that there was a case to be answered." Hardly done and dusted then!   

All that happened at a time when every bloody media hawk in the country was circling around Labour. The NEC were trying to wriggle out of a media-driven crisis, cheer-led by the Israeli regime, and making a balls of it. The way you're talking about them you'd think you'd listed a litany of saints. You won't hear a word against 'em. Had they been talking about restoring trade union power or supporting Unite and McCluskey you'd have been calling them lying, subversive scumbags. You want your cake and eat it, just like those stupid brexiteers.

Nah then, Keith and Puggers. Naz Shah's precise "antisemitic" words, please. Come on, chaps. It's only a sandal-wearing former teacher asking. Leftie wastrels, the lot of us! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 03:17 PM

To save messing about I don't mind posting what she put - Taken from this Guardian article

The comments following are purely my opinions. Which will invariably differ from that of others but differing opinions are no bad thing. In my opinion... :-)

1. The post, shared nine months before she beat George Galloway to win the seat in Bradford West, showed a picture of Israel superimposed over the United States, with the approving comment: "Problem solved and save you bank charges for the £3bn you transfer yearly."

Primarily about the backing of the state of Israel by the USA. No mention of the Jewish religion.

2. The Jewish Chronicle reports another Facebook post by Shah in which she calls on Facebook followers to vote in an online poll asking whether Israel had committed war crimes.

Again, about the state of Israel with no link to Jews.

3. More Facebook posts by Shah emerge. She wrote the caption #ApartheidIsrael on a picture that appeared to compare the state to the Nazis. It was above a picture of Dr Martin Luther King holding the quote: "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal'.

Pretty stupid, linking the state of Israel to Nazi Germany but yet again she does not seem to be showing any prejudice against Jews specifically.

Her apologies, as reported in the article linked, do not seem to admit antisemitism either but they may not have printed the whole apology. Here is what was printed -

First

With the understanding of the issues I have now I would never have posted them. I have to own up to the fact that ignorance is not a defence.

The language I used was wrong. It is hurtful. What's important is the impact these posts have had on other people. I understand that referring to Israel and Hitler as I did is deeply offensive to Jewish people, for which I apologise.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm shocked myself at the language I used in some instances during the Gaza-Israel conflict.


and second

Mr Speaker, can I seek your advice on how I can express my deep sorrow for something the prime minister referred to earlier?

As you know, when a government minister makes a mistake they can correct the record. I hope you will allow me to say that I fully acknowledge that I have made a mistake and I wholeheartedly apologise to this house for the words I used before I became a member.

I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop. As an MP I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none.

I am grateful and thankful for the support and advice I have received from many Jewish friend and colleagues, advice I intend to act upon.

I truly regret what I did and I hope, I sincerely hope, that this house will accept my profound apology.


Typical politspeak if you ask me. Says that any form of racism must stop but does not admit to any!

I think the biggest argument here must be with the press and how the media have blown this out of all proportion. A blatant attempt to derail the Corbyn bandwagon.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 03:57 PM

Pretty stupid, linking the state of Israel to Nazi Germany but yet again she does not seem to be showing any prejudice against Jews specifically.

That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"

From the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism adopted by consensus of the 31 member countries, 11 observer countries and the Permanent International Partners which includes United Nations, UNESCO, OSCE/ODIHR, International Tracing Service (ITS), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Council of Europe, and the Claims Conference.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:13 PM

That is fine. Some people say that it is antisemitism but not everyone agrees. That will always happen. Whether it is or isn't is not really the point on this thread though is it? There is one stupid statement by one MP, for which she was suspended and has subsequently apologised and has subsequently pledged to "build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none." Is this really indicative that antisemitism is rife in the labour party? If so, what other examples do we have?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 04:50 PM

Some people say that it is antisemitism but not everyone agrees.

Since the UK is one of the member countries that adopted the definition I would say that anyone expressing those views in the UK is committing an act of anti-Semitism regardless the prejudice of individuals who refuse to accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 05:53 PM

Superstar post, Dave. Naz was an idiot, not an antisemite, a learner of lessons. Saving her own arse. All those things. The context was a right-wing onslaught from pro-Tory tabloids and the Israeli regime and a Labour leadership that was inexperienced and panicky.

What a comedown to have to consider bobad's abject post. What she said is antisemitic if the definition is correct. Which it isn't. If the definition has been adopted but is incorrect, she is not antisemitic. The adoption of a definition does not imbue it with correctness or special authority. The definition has been pushed, pushed and pushed by pro-Israeli regime lobby groups. The EUMC version was proposed by a group that was "advised" by overwhelmingly pro-Israel regime lobbies. Rightly, it was abandoned before it was adopted. I actually don't think we need to have an "official definition." Billions of people happily follow a religion yet there's no "official definition" of God. Antisemitism is easy to define. It's as easy to define as any other kind of racism. Nothing complicated or special about it that needs committees driven by pro-Israel lobbies. If you attack, oppress, criticise or discriminate against Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, you are antisemitic. You are not necessarily antisemitic (depends on your motives, as ever) if you criticise the state of Israel or the policies or actions of its regime. Having "definitions" drawn up by pressure groups pushed down your throat is a very bad way to go. Positively divisive. And it gets their proponents absolutely nowhere. Wittering on about it as bobad and Keith do just victimises Jewish people and helps to put them in harm's way. Ups the ante, big-time. People like bobad and Keith are the arch-enemies of Jewish people the world over.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 06:41 PM

Once again a leftist non-Jew feels curiously entitled to tell Jews they're wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 07:15 PM

I haven't told any Jews that they're wrong or subjected any Jews to long lectures. I'm telling YOU that, not only are you wrong, you're crippled by bigotry, and it's only you I'm delivering long (allegedly) lectures to. There are very many Jews who find the attitude of people like you to be totally obnoxious (I know a few as it happens). By grouping all Jews together in order to say that I'm lecturing them, etc., you are displaying the same antisemitism you're so fond of accusing others of. "All Jews are the same" is what you're saying. "All these blacks are the same" is what I heard a lot of at school in the sixties. All Jews are not the same and very few of them would be siding with you right now. The Jewish people on this planet have got more than enough to put up with without people like you and Keith making things infinitely worse for them.

You simply can't see your way round any of this because of the fog of prejudice. It's no way to go through the world.   Enjoy your bubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:32 AM

"Question best directed at Naz Shah and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party don't you think Shaw - Keith A after all only reported what they themselves said. Your argument is with them not Keith A."

I have noticed that neither Naz Shah or the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party post on Mudcat, therefore the argument is with the person who posts.

If it is not perhaps they would refrain from posting things they cannot or will not substantiate themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 03:59 AM

"That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:"
Can you explain why you are free to ignore this clause:
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
by continuing to accuse all critics of antisemitism, yet hide behind Jews, including leading members of the Israeli establishment are making.
Israel is being described as either moving towards fascism or already there by Israelis

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:10 AM

"That constitutes anti-Semitism according to this clause:"
Can you explain why you are free to ignore this clause:
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
by continuing to accuse all critics of Israeli policy of antisemitism, yet condemn an accusation now being made regularly by Jews, including leading members of the Israeli establishment.
Israel is being described as either moving towards fascism or is already a FASCIST STATE throughout the world by Jews and non Jews alike
You are, by the definition you quote, an antisemite Bobad - tell us what makes you so special in selecting the bits of the definition that suit you and ignoring the bits that don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:20 AM

"the argument is with the person who posts."

Ehmmmmm No Raggy, the discussion centres on the content of the post, it is not an argument with the messenger, although for nearly three years now you and your pals have been bullying, mobbing and browbeating one particular member of this forum at every single opportunity you can grab.

For sake of clarity both Naz Shah and the NEC of the Labour Party are both easily contactable - none of you will do this as you most certainly would NOT like the answer they would supply.

DtG asked what in the reported coverage of what Naz Shah said was anti-Semitic.

Well according to Baroness Royall's recommendations this:

"She wrote the caption #ApartheidIsrael on a picture that appeared to compare the state to the Nazis."

This Naz Shah fully recognised otherwise why on earth would she say the following:

"I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM

Still not the point bobad. The thread is entitled 'labour party discussion'. Feel free to discuss definitions of antisemitism if you like but I have made my point and feel no further need to progress it. In case you missed it I shall rephrase.

Naz Shah made a stupid statement whether it was antisemitic or not.

But does the action of this one person tar the whole of the Labour party antisemitic? If anyone believes that antisemitism is rife in the Labour party can they provide examples of clear antisemitism from more than, what shall we say, 10%? 5%? 1%?, of its membership?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:38 AM

Naz Shah chose her words badly and apologised for it.
If she is an antisemite so is Bobad for blaming the Jews for Isreal's crimes and he is a hypocrite for choosing only the part of the definition which suits him and ignoring the other which doesn't
Now we have these people clinging to one single case of one ill though out statement
"Where have all the thousands of Labour antisemites gone?" as the song could have said
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:39 AM

Same answer to your post as to bobad's, Teribus. The fact that Naz Shah said "I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop" Indicates that she accepts that she did cause upset obviously. However, there are plenty of ways to upset people without being racist or antisemitic but even that is still not the point. The point is, was this typical of the majority of the Labour party membership or even leadership? If so, which I doubt, is this also typical "I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none."? Hardly the phrase an antisemite would be comfortable with.

Is antisemitism endemic in the Labour party or was it just a ploy by the right wing press to stem the growing popularity of the right wing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:44 AM

Sorry - Last words should of course be left wing.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:06 AM

Shah acknowledged that her statements were anti-Semitic but denied being an anti-Semite.
She said she was ignorant of Jewish history.
In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East.

It was not just her.
There were over 50 secretly suspended.
The "entire NEC" were "appalled" by anti-Semitism within Labour. You make yourselves ridiculous denying it was and is an issue.

Deputy Leader just last week,
"Let me say something before we get any further today about taking on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party: that's a moral responsibility. I am ashamed that I am saying anti-Semitism and Labour in the same sentence.
"But dealing with it can't be something we do for show, for the sake of it, because we've come under media pressure, or because we need to deal with a political problem. It's a commandment.
"I know that people here are understandably frustrated by how long it's taking the Labour Party to deal with anti-Semitism in our midst. You're right to be. It should have been quicker.
"I know there are still some outstanding issues that cannot be ignored. They won't be ignored. Action is being taken now and if, God forbid, we find these problems again, action will be quicker in the future."

Jim, can you substantiate that Shah's statement in Parliament was part of an "agreement?"
Steve, can you substantiate that she was lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

So, what we have as evidence for antisemitism being endemic in the Labour party are 50 suspensions that no one can confirm because they are 'secret' and a statement that any antisemitism in the party is indeed appalling?

Not evidence at all really is it?

Can anyone come up with any real facts or figures as to how many people in the Labour party are antisemitic?

No?

Just asking.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:35 AM

Dave, are you saying that there is no evidence of anti-Semitism having been a problem within Labour?
Why would Sadique Khan and Tom Watson lie about it?
Why would the NEC say they were appalled by it?
Why so many suspensions?
Why the enquiries and reports on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:38 AM

1000!