BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 10:50 AM

Rag,
It's a pretty word, pity it's been twisted and used as a vehicle for racists, but that's how it goes.
We all know and agree the word was and is used as a racist slur in US, but only recently in UK if it even has.
Non-PC certainly, but racist?

Powell made many racist statements, like, "The black man shall have the whip hand over the white man."
A very racist statement, but he does not use racist language.
He was much too clever to do that.

Mcgrath went on to say,
"A parallel to all this exists in "bambino" - when used in English, but in an Italian context, it implies an Italian baby. But outside that context, if anyone used it of a baby, it wouldn't imply the baby was Italian, just that the speaker liked to use Italian words sometimes. That's the way piccaninny has been used in countries like England, in the past anyway. I'd suspect that bert's blue eyes piccaninny song could well be English rather than American."

Now Rag, what has any of this to do with the Labour Party today?
You all kept asking for examples of the antisemitic statements and the names of the Labour people who made them.
You now have a few more, though not the whole 50 who were suspended for their antisemitic statements.
Any comments?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 10:56 AM

Johnson Obama Comments Not "Racist"

Barack Obama describes himself as a "Francophile".

Tends to attempt to dictate what the UK and should not do, as though we should actually pay attention - Over the EU Referendum he strongly supported the "Remain" side recommending that the UK should sign up to something that he and the US Congress would not go near as long as their arses pointed downwards.

Britain would go the back of the queue on trade deals with the UK - Barack Obama being "friendly" towards the United Kingdom.

Apparently

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 11:18 AM

Teri, use the link I provided a few days ago


Professor keep digging

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 11:23 AM

the thousands of Israeli citizens of the Jewish faith who oppose the policies of the Israeli government and the atocities they commit.

I am sure there are Israeli citizens who don't agree with some of their government's policies that is, after all, one of the hallmarks of a democracy. As for the atocities [sic] they commit only fanatics and Jew haters would consider defending your country's citizens from attack an atrocity so I doubt there are thousands of Israeli citizens of the Jewish faith that fit that bill. But you must, no doubt, have the statistics to back up your claim or is it merely more of your made-up-shit™ ?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 11:35 AM

In Jom's red hot list of 27 Tory "indiscretions" three were instances attributed to Boris Johnson:

1: The sarcastic comment about the Queen, the Commonwealth and the Piccaninnies - Which if actually studied proves to be correct, acceptable and accurate use of language for describing any Royal Visit to quite large sections of the Commonwealth.

2: The comment in an article about the low IQ of "Black Africans" which Jom's link said Boris Johnson wrote - Investigation shows that Boris Johnson wrote no such article, it did appear in the "Spectator" while Boris Johnson was Editor, the article itself was written by Taki Theodoracopulos.

3: Then there was the "racist" Barack Obama comments - which of course were nothing of the sort, certainly not as far as Barack Obama himself was concerned.

Oh and before you ask. Why did he apologise? It is the sort of thing anyone conversant with what constitutes good manners and behaviour does when told that offence has been taken at something said inadvertently.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 11:40 AM

"Ah Jom but that is not what you originally said was it?"
Ah mein fuhrer
What I originally said was that the millions of men who were sent to their deaths were led by incompetents.
I gave Kitchener as an example - you demurred.
The delay caused by Kitchener's blunder in sending the wrong ammunition causes countless thousands of deaths - he was forced to tender his resignation by the public shame of what he'd done (all covered in Paxman's programmes).
The fact that the government regarded the reputation of the Generals as being more important than the lives and safety of the fighting men is further proof, if any were needed of the unnecessary sacrifice of an entire generation of young men in this Imperial bloodbath.
It is a point of semantics as whether Kitchen was forced to resign or to offer is resignation - he offered his resignation because of his blunder - it matters little whether it was politically expedient to accept that resignation.
Another battle lost, I'm afraid - now why not go down with your ship like all good galley swabbers are supposed to do.
As I said, unlike you pair, I don't make up anything - -it would be a total for me or anybody to do so.
Your clownishly arrogant and ignorant behaviour makes it totally unnecessary - keep it up.
"I quoted such figures then as Alibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Shafiq."
No you didn't - you referred to over-representation as you have just done (you have been given the actual state of that over-representation – around a thousand in a population of over a million - nobody has suggested an implant (which you acknowledge was your opinion).
Nobody anywhere has ever at any time attempted to implicate and entire culture in sexual deviance, as you have and continue to do.
Boris Johnson comes pretty near the mark when he referred to black people having lower IQs (but that's Foreign Secretaries for you!!)
Piccaninnies has been recognised as an offensive term for best part of my lifetime, certainly long before Johnson used it and it is further proof of your extensive racism to defend it
Johnson's use of this, his IQ reference and his reference to Obama's origins, makes him a serial racist.
You really do never learn, do you?
Unless you can provide anybody claiming that the entire male Pakistani population is culturally implanted to rape children, this discussion is over and this disgusting statement remains all your own work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 11:59 AM

But you must, no doubt, have the statistics to back up your claim>

Bubo, a simple web search - which you no doubt can't be arsed to perform and the results of which you would discard in any case- will turn up more that you'll be able to read in a month. But to get you started:

http://www.ejnet.org/ip/

http://btvshalom.org/

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/jew2jew.html

http://forward.com/news/israel/202796/jews-march-in-new-york-rally-against-israel-war-in/

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

http://jfjfp.com/

http://www.voicesfrominside.net/organizations.htm

http://www.allmep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192&Itemid=4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_peace_projects#Alliance_for_Middle_East_Peace_.28ALLMEP.29

Now, of course, you'll claim that these are all Jew-hating (or Jewish self-hating) antisemitic organizations.......

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 12:36 PM

"he was forced to tender his resignation by the public shame of what he'd done"

Nope - try again - truth would be good this time.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 12:40 PM

Checked out a few of your links Greg and all I see are anti Israel hate sites, no statistics to support your claims. So just more made-up-shit™.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 12:42 PM

"Boris Johnson comes pretty near the mark when he referred to black people having lower IQs"

Where did Boris Johnson refer to black people having lower IQs?

Fact is that Boris Johnson didn't another Journalist working for the Spectator did.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 12:42 PM

"it did appear in the "Spectator" while Boris Johnson was Editor"

That's all right then.

"Investigation shows..."

New TV series:

"Teribus Investigates: Digging the dirt on the dirtiest dogs in the district"

I for one would watch that. Actually, I wouldn't.


"Britain would go the back of the queue on trade deals with the UK "

Yer wot? Britain would be at the back of the queue for trade deals with... itself? Get a grip Inspector Tezza!

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 12:48 PM

Try this one Stu:

Barack Obama's Back of the queue threat

I would appear to be a damn sight better at "investigating" things than you.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 12:55 PM

It appears I wrongly attributed the "lower IQ remark to Johnson - aploogies.
Having said that, as far as his position as Foreign Secretary is concerned, it makes no difference whatever
It is a reflection on the the Government of the Day to appoint someone to such a position whose reputation is tainted by association with racist remarks.
While he may not have written the article, as editor, it was accepted by him for publication - all articles in major magazines, such as The Spectator "a conservative magazine, editorship of which is regarded as "a step on the ladder to high office in the Conservative Party in the UK" are agreed upon by an editorial committee and are the ultimate responsibility of the editor.
It was a profound racist article and its appearance in such a magazine must be considered as reflecting the views of all associated with it, considering the position it occupies.
Had it been included in a Labour Journal, our own resident rat-pack whould have been triumphantly at the moon as they still are over a non--event that has long been proven a non-event
It is basic hypocrisy to continue condemning something that has been proven to be false, while, at the same time, letting our racist Foreign Secretary off the hook.
Piccanniny is a deeply racist term and has been for the best part of my lifetime - no matter how our Royal racist Duke of Edinburgh, who is known fro his racist gaffes, refers to the "colonials"
The Dook is there as decoration on the Royal Christmas cake - The Foreign Secretary is responsible for Britain's dealings with other nations.
Pickaninny (also picaninny or piccaninny or pickinniny) is a term in English which refers to a racist and derogatory caricature of dark-skinned children of African descent - it has long been associated with slavery.
It is immaterial that Obama accepted it with good grace - it is a racist term and should not be one associated with a British Foreign secretary - again, it is gross hypocrisy to excuse its use by a British politician, nor statesman, while continuing to condemn a non-event, especially one that has been trumped up by Israeli propaganda.
As I said - Britain has a racist Foreign Secretary whose name has been associated with that 'little weakness' for a long time.
One gaff in a Foreign secretary is inexcuable; three shows a distinct tendency - but then, Johnson is but one of a number of racists tolerated by the Conservative Party.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 01:06 PM

AND THE LABOUR PARTY HAS A "PROBLEM"!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 02:12 PM

Jim,
Every time you lose an argument you resort to trying to smear me as a person.
Here we go again.
"I quoted such figures then as Alibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Shafiq."
No you didn't -

Yes I did.
They all ascribed the offending to culture.
We are all affected to some extent by our culture. We are all "implanted."

you referred to over-representation as you have just done

Yes I did. All of those mentioned and many more since have confirmed it.
e.g. ""The Muslim community must accept and address the fact that Asian and Pakistani men are disproportionately involved in "localised, street grooming" of vulnerable girls, one of the UK's most senior prosecutors (Nazir Afzal, Crown Prosecution Service's lead on child sexual abuse) has said.
and, "Asked why Pakistani men are overrepresented in statistics relating to on-street grooming, Shaista Gohir, chair of Muslim Women's Network UK, said it was a complex issue but partly stemmed from a lack of respect for women and girls."

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 02:20 PM

Jim,
Piccanniny is a deeply racist term and has been for the best part of my lifetime

Yes, but only in USA.

In the old thread it is pointed out that the word is in everyday use with no negative connotations in the Caribbean.
Until recently our black community came almost entirely from the Caribbean. If they did not regard it as in any way offensive, why would anyone else?

Having established that the word has only recently become non-pc here, and never was racist, I will not post about it further on a thread about the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 03:05 PM

"Yes I did."
You did not Keith - if you calaim that anybody has ever described the entire male population as being implanted culturally implanted to rape cildren produce it now.
You have lied about this consistently and you are lying now.
Easy to prove - produce it or withdraw it - simpleas that
You never have.
"localised, street grooming"
You have the numbers - out of over a million
Repetition of this just compounds the lie.
"Yes, but only in USA.
"Yes, but only in USA.
Everywhere Keith
Another lie.
You are a racist to condone it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 03:06 PM

Talk about scraping the barrel !

Quoting another poster (McGarth of Harlow)on this forum is not exactly referring to experts, not even up to the low standards of your usual cut an pastes.

With all due respect to McGarth, he is in all likelihood a really decent man I've never met him. (Sorry Mr McGarth my sincere apologies)

However to use him as a source is utterly ridiculous.

I know you will never concede you are a RACIST Keith but your continued posts only serve to cement the view.

However please keep digging.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 03:33 PM

Checked out a few of your links Greg and all I see are anti Israel hate sites

Yup, Bubo- especially the majority of them a that are maintained and/or supported by persons of the Jewish faith and/or Israeli citizens. Anti-semites every last one.

You really are an ignorant, despicable piece of work. Perhaps you can get a positiion on The Trumpshit's Cabinet - you'd be a natural.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 05:14 PM

It isn't news that there are groups of Jews that are opposed to some of their government's policies just as there are those in the US and other democracies. That they exist is one of the things that make Israel, a free, democratic and inclusive country, a beacon of light in a region of countries ruled by oppressive despots.

BTW Greg, I'm still waiting for your source to the claim that thousands of Israelis of the Jewish faith are opposed to the "atrocities" committed by their government.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 06:03 PM

BTW Greg, I'm still waiting for your source to the claim that thousands of Israelis of the Jewish faith are opposed to the "atrocities" committed by their government.

vide 02 Aug 16 - 11:59 AM , et al.

Assuming you are able to read.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 06:35 PM

No Greg, those links don't cut it by a country mile. Dare I say it again more made-up-shit™.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Aug 16 - 07:38 PM

"Yes, but only in USA."
Piccaninny has been used as a term of abuse at least since the Notting Hill Riots - it actually features as a racist epithet in a Giles cartoon depicting a white rioter being escorted into a hospital by a black doctor in 1958 - it caused controversy then.
It was used as a term of racist abuse in the 1970 during the rise in football violence in the 1970s.
Objections to its featured strongly in the objections to The Black and White Minstrel Show in the late 1970s.
Strong objections to the term were raised in Parliament and in the Press when it was used in Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood speech in 1968
It continued to be used by cretins like Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning, but it was finally generally disappeared from usage in the media some time in the early 80s, through it was occasionally used in dramas to shock.
It is a racist term and has been recognised as such for half a century.
The MacMillan dictionary describes it:
"pickaninny noun
'offensive' a black child. This word is sometimes used by older white people but most people consider it offensive"
It has long been an offensive racist word, anybody who uses it or supports its usage is a racist - we have a racist Foreign Secretary
End of story.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 03:19 AM

Jim Carroll - 02 Aug 16 - 12:55 PM

"It appears I wrongly attributed the "lower IQ remark to Johnson - aploogies.

Having said that, as far as his position as Foreign Secretary is concerned, it makes no difference whatever. {Of course not Jom your biased mind was already unalterably made up - Not in the least surprised at that, nothing new there}

It is a reflection on the the Government of the Day to appoint someone to such a position whose reputation is tainted by association with racist remarks."

Now that last sentence is closing in on the nub of this discussion about the Labour anti-Semitism row in which there are three parts.

1: Baroness Royall's inquiry into the Oxford University Labour Club

2: Shami Chakrabarti's investigation

3: The decision by Labour's NEC to make public Chakrabarti's Report but keep Baroness Royall's report secret.

The actions recommended by Shami Chakrabarti's report effectively put a "statute of limitations" on any prior transgressions of anyone in the Labour Party (What a pity Boris Johnson wasn't a "socialist" eh Jom because under these new Labour rules the matter would not have been looked into and he would have been allowed to carry on as normal). So we have all of these completely anonymous slightly or moderately anti-Semitic young Labour "hopefuls" at Oxford University preparing themselves for careers in politics and nobody has got the foggiest notion of who they are or what they did. They must have done something Jom otherwise there would have been no urgent recommendations that required immediate and sustained action. But because of Chakrabarti's recommendations and the NEC's decision it would appear that the Labour Party of the future (If indeed it has any future at all) may appoint to important positions goodness knows how many candidates whose reputations have been tainted by racist behaviour or association with racist behviour.

Piccanniny is a deeply racist term and has been for the best part of my lifetime - no matter how our Royal racist Duke of Edinburgh, who is known fro his racist gaffes, refers to the "colonials"

Oh Dear, Jom's grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick again, as usual.

Taking the first part of that:

"Piccanniny is a deeply racist term and has been for the best part of my lifetime"

Irrelevant, you were brought up in the UK and you now live in Ireland where what you say above is undoubtedly the case. Elsewhere in the world it most certainly is not the case, the word means a small child (That is any child of any origin) and is in constant daily usage. Boris Johnson, wrote a line about the Queen and the Commonwealth, as stated previously there is nothing racist at all in him referring to "flag waving piccanninnies" as that is how they would be referred to by their own parents.

Now the second bit:

"no matter how our Royal racist Duke of Edinburgh, who is known fro his racist gaffes, refers to the "colonials"

The Duke of Edinburgh has referred to "colonials" as piccanninnies? That's news to me Jom, any more details on that? Or is this just more Jim Carroll "Made-up-shit"?

"The number one Piccanninny who belongs to the Queen" was how Prince Charles was referred to on an official visit to Papua New Guinea. He was so amused by it that he used the phrase to introduce himself to people who spoke the native language for the entire trip.

"Pickaninny (also picaninny or piccaninny or pickinniny) is a term in English which refers to a racist and derogatory caricature of dark-skinned children of African descent - it has long been associated with slavery."

Whereas elsewhere in the world it is in common everyday usage and it refers to a small child.

It is immaterial that Obama accepted it with good grace - it is a racist term and should not be one associated with a British Foreign secretary"

It is racist to state the fact that Barack Obama's father was Kenyan? Dying to hear your further explanation of that.

It is racist to make the observation and comment on the fact that you think someone is "ancestrally anti-British"?

Don't think so in either case Jom, they are merely statements of fact as one person sees it. You do it all the time, the only difference is that Boris did explain why he held the views he did by providing examples of how Barack Obama could be described as being "ancestrally anti-British" (I would imagine that, considering the history of the country, quite a few Americans are).

As far as I am aware Boris Johnson has made no "gaffes" so far in his capacity as Foreign Secretary - but early days yet as you say - let's see if he can surpass Labour's late great Lord George Brown in the "total embarrassment-stakes" in the post of Foreign Secretary shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 03:36 AM

bobad - 02 Aug 16 - 05:14 PM

"It isn't news that there are groups of Jews that are opposed to some of their government's policies just as there are those in the US and other democracies. That they exist is one of the things that make Israel, a free, democratic and inclusive country, a beacon of light in a region of countries ruled by oppressive despots."

Very true bobad, but you have to realise that while Greg F. gnashes his teeth at the likes of GWB and Donald Trump - he defends and supports the likes of Assad in Syria and Hamas in Gaza. I would just like to point out to Greg F. that while Israel does hold elections and respect the results of those elections Hamas does not and that the Hamas method for dealing with those who politically oppose them is to launch them off the roofs of multi-storey buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 03:38 AM

"constant daily usage" What !!

Grow up Teri, you haven't heard this word in years never mind in constant daily usage. Once again a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible in this case the professors racism.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 03:44 AM

Jim, Macmillan dictionary gives US and UK usage.
I do not accept all those unsupported assertions you make about the usage.
Your memory or honesty are at fault.
Rag, McGrath has been here for about twenty years and is about the most respected contributor on Mudcat.
This thread is not about etymology, so please drop it or start a thread.

Jim,
if you calaim that anybody has ever described the entire male population as being implanted culturally implanted to rape cildren produce it now.

Nobody has, including me.
The offending has been ascribed to the culture, and we are all influenced (implanted) by our culture.
I always acknowledged that the offenders were a tiny minority of the community, but it is a fact that a majority of the offenders are from that community.
I have no opinion on that culture because I know nothing about it.

Now, stop trying to smear me as a person just because you are losing another argument.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 03:51 AM

Returning to the subject, we now have many more examples of the antisemitism within Labour that led to 50 suspensions and two inquiries.
None of you have commented even though you have been demanding examples from the start.

You also all failed to recognise that Shah's hateful remarks were antisemitic, and Rag has made the case that failing to recognise racism makes you "abject racists."
Is he right?
Do you retract Rag?

Drop the diversions and respond to the debating points put to you.
Is the problem that you can't??

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 04:02 AM

Detract What professor. I have said before I have never mentioned Shah in any way shape or form.

As I have never mentioned Shah I cannot detract from what I said can I.

However keep digging.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 04:31 AM

Naz Shah's silly remark was about Israel, not the Jews. How typical of you to assume that you are 100% right in your assumed, arbitrary definition of antisemitism and that those who disagree with you are 100% wrong. Still, that's people of religion for you. You are also being extremely judgemental in your unqualified reference to her as being antisemitic. There's been no judge and jury and only right-wing apologists for thre Israeli regime say that. You do not have the monopoly on the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 04:45 AM

Rubbish, Teribus. The report focuses on antisemitism. There is no "effective statute of limitations" on any other type of past transgressions that are not to do with antisemitism, even if you're right, which I very much doubt.

As for remarks about piccaninnies and Kenyan background, etc., stop being so disingenuous. You know very well that when remarks of that nature are made, context and nuance are everything, both aspects you have deliberately excised from your defences. Do you think it's OK for us to call black people niggers if we hear them or their parents calling themselves it? I've heard it hundreds of times in the East End schools I worked in and I told the culprits that it was totally unacceptable, which it is.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 04:49 AM

Steve,
How typical of you to assume that you are 100% right in your assumed, arbitrary definition of antisemitism

Not just me Steve. The Labour Nec and leadership and Shah herself were quite clear that her statements were antisemitic, but you are still unable to recognise it.

Rag,
You said that if someone could not recognise racism, they are an "abject racist."
Steve and Jim are unable to recognise Shah's racist statements.
Do you now retract that claim?
Do the rest of you think he is right?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 04:51 AM

"Irrelevant "
Why - if a term is used as a racist epithet, and has long been outlawed, why should it be acceptable for it to be used by politicians - are they above the rest of us - oh, forgot, of course they are to fascists.
"Elsewhere in the world it most certainly is not the case,"
So we have a Foreign secretary who speaks for the rest of the world - must say, I've never come across that one - Jay-sus!!!!!
That's news to me Jom"
I used our diplomatic Duke as an example of a British establishment figure who constantly embarrasses Britain (my Britain - not your enlist one) with his racial insensitivity - I have no idea whether he used that particular racist term - "slitty eyed", "lazy Indian workers", spear chuckers" are more par for his course.
Please do not be stupid, and don't take us for such
A racist term by a used by a British politician is a racist term - Johnson at least had the nouse to apologise for letting the mask slip - you are beyond a joke.
"It is racist to state the fact that Barack Obama's father was Kenyan"
No, of course it isn't, Johnson used it as one when he claimed that Obama had an "ancestral dislike of the UK", using his Kenyan ancestry to make the point - that is racist and it was recognised to be so.
It's the old usual - that foreigners aren't like us, they can never become one of us because it is in their genes to hate us.
Just about wipes out the entire population of present-day America - just what we want in a Foreign Secretary.
"Of course not Jom your biased mind was already unalterably made up - Not in the least surprised at that, nothing new there}"
Comes a little rich from someone who has been harping on General Kitchener for about a year now and just watched his boat sink.
I acknowledged my mistake and apologised - you have neither the good grace to accept that people do such things, nor the balls to do similar for your list of "made-up-crap when it is pointed out to you.
Comes with being a superior being, eh-what?
"Now that last sentence is closing in on the nub of this discussion about the Labour anti-Semitism row in which there are three parts."
Why do you always manage to sound like a latter-day Mr Quelch?
You are a pompous buffoon - the only entertaining aspect to your contributions is your self-projected image of a blimpish gun-nut, wannabe military veteran who wants to be taken seriously by bullying his opinions to the world - a wonderful caricature of a congenital all-round failure.
You're metier appears to be a crowded barroom around closing time, trying to impress the local yokels.
So what have we got – it isn't racist to use words that are used elsewhere – it's ok to use the ancestry of people to stereotype them and the world has missed what you know about the Labour Party
You really are a sad joke, and a dim one at that.
As I said, if you have any evidence of any form of racial or cultural wrongdoing in the Labour party, please produce it and show what the rest of the world appears to have missed about any of these things
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 05:02 AM

"I would appear to be a damn sight better at "investigating" things than you."

I'm not claiming to be the great investigator, that was you m'lud. I remember Obama's ill-conceived comments on putting Britain to the back of the queue and it got my gander up a bit as it a) Seemed like bullying and b) it was obvious it would rile up folk and drive more to the leave side of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 05:29 AM

"Grow up Teri, you haven't heard this word in years never mind in constant daily usage."

Well that is true Raggy - it has been years since I have been to the Caribbean, North Western Territories of Australia, the Far East, Polynesia or Melanesia. But the strange thing is Raggy the fact that I have not been in those places does not in any way at all alter the fact that in those places recently, many of whom are parts of the Commonwealth, the word is in normal daily usage and it is not regarded as racist or derogatory.

To paraphrase Will - Thankfully "There are more things in heaven and earth, Raggy, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy>"

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 05:36 AM

" Rag, You said that if someone could not recognise racism, they are an "abject racist."

I said that did I, care to point out just where I said that, or perchance you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Keep digging.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 05:41 AM

Teri, You and I both know that in the UK (and the US according to Bobad) it is considered a racist term.

We are talking about it's use in the UK nowhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:17 AM

Rag, it is only in USA that it has long been considered racist.
That is not true of UK or anywhere else.

" Rag, You said that if someone could not recognise racism, they are an "abject racist."
I said that did I, care to point out just where I said that

You stated,
"If you do not recognise the term "piccannines" as being racist (which even Bobad accepts) you are an abject racist."

Does your ruling not apply to all racist terms and statements?
Jim and Steve refuse to recognise Shah's bile as racist, so by your ruling they are "abject racists."

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:20 AM

"I would appear to be a damn sight better at "investigating" things than you."
More megalomania - if you "investigate!"things" why do you never disclose where your ideas come from - client confidentiality?
"Your are at fault."
Neither - we both know that "picaninniny" is and offenbsive racist term - that's why the press is full of Johnson's having used it as being racist
Maybe their "memory or honesty"
is at fault.
You really are stupidly obvious in your racism.
"Nobody has, including me."
And you are incredibly stupid to continue denying what you have said on line, have had put up in front of you dozens of times and continue to argue for
Truely beyond belief.
You have been asked to put up examples of others saying similar - you continue to refuse to do so and will not do so at any future date - point conclusively made I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:27 AM

Hey Great !! New games guy !!

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE

1. What the professor said I said:" Rag, You said that if someone could not recognise racism, they are an "abject racist."

2. What I actually said: "If you do not recognise the term "piccannines" as being racist (which even Bobad accepts) you are an abject racist."

Keep digging.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:27 AM

Jim,
that's why the press is full of Johnson's having used it as being racist
But it isn't, and it is 13 years since he used it.

Back to the subject.
Please discuss word meanings somewhere else.

Angela Eagle quoted in Guardian yesterday,

Eagle said on Tuesday: "The 17 whistleblowers who wrote to the Labour party with eyewitness testimony of homophobic language and actions, threats of violence and other behaviour unbecoming of Labour members did so because they want the same as we all should– for the Labour party to be a safe welcoming campaigning environment, free of bigotry and bullying.

"That is why I am so saddened and disappointed that Labour party constituency officers are seeking to challenge in public the private testimony of whistleblowers. If this was happening in a workplace, the unions – for which I worked for many years – Jeremy, myself, the whole Labour movement would be aghast ...

"Jeremy keeps telling us that he is standing for a kinder, gentler politics, but that is rendered meaningless when he fails to protect people who have witnessed bigotry and intimidation from having their anonymous testimony challenged in public.

"For weeks now, Jeremy has sat back silently as this has gone on. This is precisely the kind of behaviour that has led to the Labour party finding itself in crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:31 AM

So Rag, when you said what you said, it only applied to one specific supposed racism.
Why does it not apply to any and all racism Rag?
What was so special about that one word, which I have showed you has only recently become non-PC here.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:50 AM

Different argument professor, what is under discussion here is YOUR racism, YOUR continued defence of racism and come to think of it YOUR dishonesty to attempting to manipulate something I typed.

Keep digging.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 06:59 AM

Steve Shaw - 03 Aug 16 - 04:45 AM

I would suggest that you read Chakrabarti's Report and her recommendations. Then read the eleven recommendations that Baroness Royall made plus the seven additional recommendations she advised Shami Chakrabarti to address. Regarding those, Shami Chakrabarti did exactly the opposite of what Baroness Royall recommended. Those concerned a time limit in which any complaint can be made whereas Royall suggested that there should be no time limit and the second that subsequent to her Report being submitted Chakrabarti states that no retrospective investigations will be undertaken. But then of course Shaw you would have known all that had you read any of it.

Simple question that requires only a yes or no answer:

1: Is it racist to state the fact that someone's father happens to be Kenyan? Personally I would say no it is not.

2: Like it or not, it doesn't matter a jot. The word "piccanninnie" is in commonplace usage in a number of cultures in the Commonwealth of Nations that is a fact. It's use in those cultures is not racially slanted in any way shape or form, so stop pretending or trying to convince us that it is. You talk about context - In Boris Johnson's case he was talking about the "Head of the Commonwealth", her love of that Commonwealth, and the fact that on official visits the streets are normally lined with small children ("Piccanninnies" as their own parents would describe them) waving flags in greeting. Is it racist to describe that? No it is not.

To get back on track do you deny that Labour's NEC read Baroness Royall's Report and decided that it was in the Labour Party's best interest that the British public should not know the contents of that report into anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club and within the larger arena of the Labour Party itself?

As with everything about the Labour Party at present I think that certain things are being done to protect Jeremy Corbyn from censure.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 07:12 AM

"The word "piccanninnie" is in commonplace usage in a number of cultures in the Commonwealth of Nations that is a fact.

So you would walk up to a stranger with a child who happened to be black and say "lovely picanninny" to them would you?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 07:12 AM

Keith A of Hertford - 03 Aug 16 - 06:31 AM

"So Rag, when you said what you said, it only applied to one specific supposed racism.
Why does it not apply to any and all racism Rag?"

Ah Keith you forget Raggy is an undaunted supporter of the "left" who firmly believes that as "Some animals are more equal than others" it is perfectly acceptable in his world that there should be - "One sauce for the Goose and another for the Gander".

His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 07:12 AM

Ever more tenuous Teri, The term is racist within the UK (and the USA)

If it were not so there would have been no need to Boris Johnson to apologise, if it were not so Enoch Powell would not have been castigated for using the word.

I had presumed you had slightly more integrity than the professor, at least when you have made a error you stop going on about it, perhaps I was mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 07:50 AM

I never thought I'd see anybody defending the use of racist terms outside of racist organisations - but who knows, maybe you have a track record on that too - you certainly have the leanings.
"Extensive use has been made of this racial slur by the U.K. foreign secretary Boris Johnson, one of many comments he has made which have a strong racial undercurrent."
" Raggy is an undaunted supporter of the "left""
The "left" were being shipped of to the extermination camps by your people. along with the Jewish People
Your prod deceleration of being "right" along with your hatred of anybody who opposes the State and the bankers confirms your fascism - nothing on your plan for workers itinerency yet, I see
Keityh - any word on those people describing All male Pakinstanis and being culturally implanted to rape children yet - no - thought not.
Taklk about rats in a corner!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 07:56 AM

If it were not so there would have been no need to Boris Johnson to apologise,

He only apologised for any offence caused, though it caused none at the time (2003)
He did not acknowledge or accept that the word is racist.

if it were not so Enoch Powell would not have been castigated for using the word.

He was not castigated for using the word.
The word has no derogatory connotations where our black communities originated.
If they are not offended by it, why should anyone else be.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 16 - 08:02 AM

Jim,
I never thought I'd see anybody defending the use of racist terms outside of racist organisations

If you mean this forum, you have not seen it.

Extensive use has been made of this racial slur by the U.K. foreign secretary Boris Johnson,

No. He used it once in 2003, and no-one thought anything of it.

Keityh - any word on those people describing All male Pakinstanis and being culturally implanted to rape children yet - no - thought not.

Yes, I replied earlier.
Here it is again,

if you calaim that anybody has ever described the entire male population as being implanted culturally implanted to rape cildren produce it now.

Nobody has, including me.
The offending has been ascribed to the culture, and we are all influenced (implanted) by our culture.
I always acknowledged that the offenders were a tiny minority of the community, but it is a fact that a majority of the offenders are from that community.
I have no opinion on that culture because I know nothing about it.

Now, stop trying to smear me as a person just because you are losing another argument.