BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 03:00 PM

Raggytash - 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM

"It would appear from this and other threads that your answer to everything is violence."

Hardly Raggy, I am all for peace through negotiation. But where there is no intention, or even desire to negotiate, what are the alternatives, especially when you consider that the side so set against negotiation has chosen violence since 1920.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:54 AM

It would appear from this and other threads that your answer to everything is violence.

Not that I'm at all surprised by that. Violence resonates through most of your postings and if anything is getting worse as time passes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:40 AM

IIRC Jim, Keith A as OP of a number of threads has been told by you in the past that being OP does not mean that you "own" the thread or that you can direct what is discussed. One rule for all Carroll - not a "socialist" principle I know, but get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:34 AM

Raggytash - 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM

Ehmmm No Raggy it was the other way around, if you look at the numbers of civilians killed. Germany attacked British centres of population in their bid to break the morale of the people - they killed ~62,500 civilians. After Coventry Churchill made the survivors a promise that he made good on as when we turned the German's weapon and strategy against them using airpower to degrade their ability to wage war and break the morale of the German population - we killed ~600,000 civilians.

Tell you what Raggy if you are attempting to equate living under Israeli occupation to living under the Nazis then ask people who are actually living under Israeli "occupation" - The Druze Arabs of the Golan Heights - go and ask them who they'd rather living under the democratically elected Israeli Government or Assad? You'll get their answer in less than a nano-second.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 08:17 AM

""Shut it down" Greg F.? Why because you and your pals are being forced to accept as reality what you have all denied?"
No - because that's what we have been asked to do by the OP
You appear to have caught a nasty dose of Keith's "I won" disease
We have been requested to take these arguments elsewhere and let those who wish to continue with the subject of this thread - I suggest that's what we do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 04:44 AM

Wasn't that what the Nazi's used to do. Kill one of ours and we'll kill 10 of yours, normally civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 16 - 02:40 AM

"Shut it down" Greg F.? Why because you and your pals are being forced to accept as reality what you have all denied?

Kevin if you want me to I can dig up posts on previous threads where Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll have furiously and indignantly told others that they have absolutely no right to dictate what others post and where.

Like all good "socialists" it seems that:

"There's one sauce for the goose and another for the gander" and/or "Do as I say, not as I do".

Jim Carroll - 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM - Comparative death tolls? Since when has war featured equivalence? Since 1920 the Arabs of the region have deliberately and repeatedly chosen violence before peace. Fortunately they are not very good at it compared to those who they have publicly and repeatedly declared they wish to "annihilate", "kill" and "drive into the sea" - perhaps Jim it is time for them to "Give peace a chance" - but you and I know with a sad certainty that that is not going to happen with the result that for every one Israeli they manage to kill, the Israelis acting in defence of their own population will kill nine Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:11 PM

Wouldn't the other thread be a better home for the last few posts?
They would Mac
Knee jerk reaction - sorry.
Won't happen again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

Wouldn't the other thread be a better home for the last few posts?
...............

Not too surprisingly there a still signs of continuing bellyaching and sabotage from the Corbynphobic suicide squad.

There's a time to cut your losses and make friends. Someone who I anticpate is going to surprise people and do that I predict will be Liz Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 12:14 PM

"2005 have indiscriminately fired over 15,000 missiles into Israel in the hope of killing as many Israeli civilians, men, women and children as possible"
Didn't you miss a bit?
COMPARATIVE DEATH TOLLS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 11:45 AM

Pull the plug. PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 11:31 AM

This stuttering issue has only been kept alive by isolated ne'er-do-wells in Labour,

Sadiq Kahn? The entire NEC? Come off it Steve.

the gutter press

BBC? Channel 4, Independent? Huff Post? Guardian? Come off it Steve.

and some seriously misguided and dishonest factions of the pro-Israel lobby.

All of them actually. No wonder you want this discussion shut down. You have no case!

CH 4 News Presenter Cathy Newman, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with antisemitism."

Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:32 AM

No boycott of any "regime" in the world has ever had any effect at all - not even the boycott of South Africa, which was started in 1959 and was a dead duck by 1966.

The BDS campaign hits only the people, not the "regime", the Israeli Government's main responsibility (In fact the primary responsibility of any national government) is to safeguard the territorial integrity and security of the state and the people, and the people of Israel fully realise, respect and appreciate that - that is why they voted for the Government they currently have.

Another facet of this question is the fact tht Israel can survive perfectly well without Gaza and without the West Bank - it has done so from the State's inception. Unfortunately Gaza and the West Bank cannot survive economically without Israel, so hit, or attempt to hit, Israel economically then it is the "Palestinians" and now apparently the "Gazans" who pick up the tab for it.

Terrorising the Gazans {whoever the they may be - I mean apart from the prats who since 2005 have indiscriminately fired over 15,000 missiles into Israel in the hope of killing as many Israeli civilians, men, women and children as possible) is easy tell the "Gazans" to stop attacking Israel and to formally recognise the State of Israel and acknowledge that it has the right to exist free from attack or threat of attack. Now oddly enough Carroll that is a thing the Arabs of the region have never, ever tried in the 68 years since Israel became a reality, recognised by the UN. But as the Arabs of the region do not appear to even consider giving this course of action house room, the next time things "kick-off" there should be no stopping it - next time it gets fought out to the finish.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:06 AM

I have started another thread, "What does antisemitism mean.?"

I suggest anyone carry on this discussion does it there - while it may be germane to the Labour Party, its implications are not limited to that, and there really are other aspects of Labour as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

"Makes not a ha'pence worth of difference by the definition of a major political organisation recognised throughout the world "
You mean like the Democrats, the Republicans, Likud.....
Additions to the centuries/millennia old definition have been put into placr by politicians, and have been re-adapted and distorted to suit their own ends, or, in Labour's case as political expediency in order to re-unite the Party.
I really want no part of anything of that.
Any definition that moves away from the persecution of Jews is, as far as I am concerned, the thin end of a very long wedge.   
If and Israeli General, an ex chief of Mossad, many thousands of Israeli citizens, hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their descendants, and Albert Einstein can make this comparison, I'm damn sure I can.
""Israelis" there do you mean the "Israeli Regime"? Or the "Israeli people"
I speak of the Israeli regime of course - I have no argument with an Israeli State - my family fought for the ideal before it became a reality.
The immediate situation to be dealt with is the terrotising of the Gazans, stop that and I have no doubt that the Israeli people - no matter what their ethnic origin and religious beliefs, are capable of dealing with that internally, given that there is no external interference by way of U.N. Vetoes, which hopefully, will make the regime answerable to Human Rights laws.
The estimated cost of the propaganda is nothing compared to the assessment of how hard the Israeli economy will be hit if it is successful
Hopefully, what worked for Apartheid South Africa can work again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

He who calls others trolls is the one who has been threatened with suspension more than once and has many posts removed - see the irony there Stevie?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:41 AM

"I don't agree with Steve - plenty left here to discuss..."

I know there is but that's not the issue. We have two confirmed trolls infesting this thread, and, reading Teribus's latest offering, it looks like he's made it a triumvirate. Discuss it till the cows go home but you won't progress. This stuttering issue has only been kept alive by isolated ne'er-do-wells in Labour, the gutter press and some seriously misguided and dishonest factions of the pro-Israel lobby. And on here we have three of their lackeys who have an agenda that does not include honest and measured discussion. Give it up, Jim. The thread is fatally polluted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM

"I'm not a member of the Labour Party"

Makes not a ha'pence worth of difference by the definition of a major political organisation recognised throughout the world your remarks are regarded as being anti-Semitic.

"a propaganda campaign that is reckoned to have cost the Israelis somewhere between six and ten billion"

Now then Jim, by that "Israelis" there do you mean the "Israeli Regime"? Or the "Israeli people"? If the former then that can only be through loss of tax revenue which means that the Israeli people have taken an even bigger hit so it is the latter that get hit either way. Who do you mean when you speak of the Israeli people? Jews, Arabs, Christians? Or just the Jews of the region?

By hitting the Israeli people you demonstrate that you have no interest in peace at all, you want "pay back", you want "revenge", you support who you do hoping to see that achieved and that will only be achieved with the annihilation of the Jewish people - and you have the gall to shout "Fascist" at others.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 05:08 AM

Jim,
there is everything about supporting the bunch of antisemite monsters who are running it (Israel).

"Antisemitic." Self-hating Jews?

Steve, I am discussing current Labour Party issues that are disputed by you and others.
The discussion is not over, and it is perfectly reasonable to post evidence that it is a serious issue for Labour and that you are wrong to deny that it is.

I remind you that you and Jim tried to hijack both threads and make them about Israel and events in Lebanon over 30 years ago instead of the Labour Party now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM

"Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic."
I'm not a member of the Labour Party
The Israelis have managed to thow a smokescreen around the term "atisemitism" in order to avoid the consequences of their own behaviour so, if it;'s all right with you, I fully intend to avoid all politically expedient definitions and stick with the one I can reach for on my shelf whenever I might be in doubt.
"Full Definition of anti–Semitism
Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
Merriam Webster dictionary"
Can't see a mention of "Israeli regime" there at all.
As you support this bunch of killers, I presume yours include "anything that criticises Israeli policy".
Mac's second definition doesn't quite fit because it has far too many implications.
Judaism includes the entire planet, not just Israel; while I have no doubt that they all support the State of Israel - as far as I know, we have no idea what Jewish people feel about the behaviour of the present regime.
I didn't get married to a Jewish girl back in 1960s Manchester because I had a blazing row with her mother, a Holocaust survivor, when she described many of the Israeli leaders who were coming to the fore as "a bunch of Fascists" -
Her daughter and I had just from the cinema after sitting through though hours of the film 'Shoah' and I couldn't come to terms with the idea of Jewish Fascism - I don't have any trouble nowadays.
Some of the fiercest (and most humanely rational) critics of Israeli policy are Jewish - all "self-hating Jews" to the Netunyahus of this world.
"Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too."
Please, please keep this up Bobad; it present us with a perfect rxample of exactly the type of fascism I am referring to - see - you do have a purpose in life.
For the sake of accuracy, I'm English, aim racist smears at the right nation.
Whatever their faults, the Irish tend to be incredibly tolerant of and friendly to other nations - the Jewish people living here are forever making public statements to that fact - but there again - they'd probably only a bunch of "self haters", so what is their word worth!!
"his level of hatefullness"
It seems the moderators view Bobad's vicious bile as a useful example, as I do not even his mates here have the bottle to back him up (with one exception)
"he is too scared to impose discipline"
There goes that Fascist tendency" again - whatever happened to democracy?
Corbyn is an unknown, but one of the outstanding features of his leadership is that he is where he is with grass-roots support, despite massive and extremely disry opposition from his Parliamentary colleagues and a propaganda campaign that is reckoned to have cost the Israelis somewhere between six and ten billion.
Long may he remain there - or at least long enough to see if he lives up to his promises.
I don't agree with Steve - plenty here left to discuss rather than let the baddies win
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 02:21 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

"we could just accept that this particular aspect has been talked through and any further posts about it are recognised as as intentional disruption and completely ignored"

You men something like let's just bury our heads in the sand, do nothing and just hope things quieten down and the whole row will all go away. Like the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership is trying to do? The trouble with the man is that he has been a disruptive wrecker all his life he does not know how to build anything and he is too scared to impose discipline on his "Momentum" supporters without whom he'd be toast.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:06 PM

Both those two would have been booted out of every other forum I've been on years ago. They are not here for debate and they are allowed to get away with everything. Better to write letters to the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:56 PM

It's tempting to respond, and I've often done it. But it's not that hard to resist the temptation. There are always more relevant topics..

"Offer it up"...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:09 PM

You're wasting your time, Kevin. I've tried it. For reasons best known to them, the mods are happy to let these two trolls wreck these threads. My successful appeal to the mods to close the other thread has backfired, as the trolls have simply migrated to this one, for which I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, at least one good-hearted soul can't resist responding. I suspect that the mods just leave us Brits to it. If they actually ever dip into this thread and see what's going on, then I politely suggest to them that they should close it forthwith. This part of the board can't survive for much longer if bobad and Keith A of Hertford are allowed to stay here. It really is as simple as that. I'm off to sweeter climes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:42 PM

his level of hatefullness [sic]

Ha, ha you're quite the card there Smeg, I take it you don't read the posts of those to whom you are a nodding sycophant.

In the words of one of your fellow travelers "your non-moderatorial injunction is not appreciated, thank you very much"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:36 PM

Or we could just accept that this particular aspect has been talked through and any further posts about it are recognised as as intentional disruption and completely ignored. Someone start up a thread about definitions of antisemitism if they feel up to it.
....................
Rumours in the press of Tony Blair considering getting back into politics. Maybe he'd fit into Theresa May's reformed Tory party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:15 PM

Moderators, can we shut this train-wreck down? Enough of Bubo is too much. Why his aggressive BS is condoned is beyond me, when other posts hardly approaching his level of hatefullness disappear.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:11 PM

And yet more disgusting BooSpew. Is there no end to this garbage?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:01 PM

Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic.

Careful.........ha, ha, the little Irish Jew hating Nazi has been spewing his anti-Semitic vomit on here forever, MGM had him pegged too.

On a side note, an acquaintance is planning a research project examining anti-Semitism and social media. I suggested she check out Mudcat - she did and said it's a gold mine. I look forward to reading her findings - will post links to her web site when available. Should prove interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:48 PM

There is more to a discussion than repeating the same thing"Yes it is" "No it isn't" ad nauseum.

Basically there are two definitions of antisemitism. One is that it is about being hostile to Jews as such and to Judaism.. This is the antisemitism that we all see as despicable and unacceptable.

The other is that, since most Jews in the Jewish diaspora identify with Israel, any criticism of Israel which is over a certain level amounts to antisemitism - the level which is seen as acceptable varying according to undefined criteria. And that definition means that many people who detest the antisemitism that consists of being hostile to Jews as such and Judaism find themselves definned and targetted ss antisemites, even if they are themselves Jewish.

There's neve going to be agreement between those who accept these different definitions. It's really a waste of energy batting it back and forth.

There are many diasporas - people with ethnic and cultural links to particular countries, thoug they may live far away. I can't think of any other example where criticism of the actions of a country is taken as hostility to the diaspora which has roots in that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:48 PM

"That is why I am so vehement about the shower of killers who are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews" - Jim Carroll

Careful Jim according to Labour's new guidelines that statement of yours is anti-Semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:14 PM

Can I Just add that, while the late MtheGM and I were regular sparring partners, particularly on Israel, I hold dear his memory as somebody I liked and respected.
That respect rocketed to stratospheric heights when, having defended The State of Israel, as he should, he expressed his disgust at the present crowd who, he said, had smashed the dream of Israel that he and his generation once cherished.
I share those views utterly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 02:55 PM

Whoops - a touch of PE again
Ther is nothing wrong about supporting Israel - there is everything about supporting the bunch of antisemite monsters who are running it.
"I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."
No problem with Antisemitism then - just how she dealt with her report

A JEWISH VIEW ON LABOUR ANTISEMITISM

A Labour Party View on Jackie Walker's expulsion

Kilburn Labour Party calls for reinstatement of Jackie Walker
The Kilburn branch of the Hampstead and Kilburn Constituency Labour Party has entered the debate over the suspension of Jackie Walker by passing the following resolution yesterday evening:
This Branch/CLP notes that Jackie Walker has been suspended from Labour Party membership following remarks she made at a Party training session at conference.

We also note; The Chakrabati report advised against specific training sessions in anti-racism;
The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) was given the task of running the training session, despite it being known that its views are contested by many Jewish members of the LP;
That contrary to Data Protection – without any notice to participants – the training session was secretly filmed by a JLM member and released to the media.
That, in the view of this Branch/CLP none of the remarks made by Jackie Walker at the training session constituted anti-Semitism;
That Jackie Walker is a Black Jewish anti-racist campaigner.
That Jackie Walker's suspension by the Party is contrary to the recommendations in the Chakrabati report and the requirements of natural justice.
We therefore call on the Party to reinstate Jackie Walker to full membership of the Party
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 02:23 PM

Channel 4 News tonight. (Still chance to see it on 4+1 or the Channel 4 Player)

Presenter, "Would you acknowledge now that the Party does have a serious problem with antisemitism."

Chakrabarti, "I acknowledged the serious problems in my report itself."

Steve,
The trolls have won - not the argument, but the destruction of debate.

It is not trolling to discuss current and relevant issues pertaining to the title of the thread.
Destruction of debate is what you do with your name calling and ranting instead of rational discussion.

Greg,
Talk to me next year, Professor Nostradamus.

Why? I was describing the situation RIGHT NOW!

We already have the best performing economy in the EU and the G7!
We have the highest growth, and record low unemployment that other EU states can only dream of.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 01:35 PM

"Jim, it is OK to be pro-Israel."
Of course it is Keith - I'm pro Israel as were my parents.
My uncle Jerry as an officer, was on of the soldiers who first entered the death camps at the end of the war - my parents and grandparents took part in the Anti Mosley opposition - two of them were arrested for doing so.
That is why I am so vehement about the shower of killers who are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews
The Israeli monsters are using the Jewish People and the Holocaust to defend mass murder and human rights abuses - this is what you are defending.
"who all agree that there HAS been antisemitism in Labour."
Nobody has ever denied there has - even thje ladtyy accused of Antismitism has said thi - but she pointed out that this is a feature of life in Britain and is a feature of all political aprties - you have sought to make it exclusively Labour and a major problem - it is neither
"No. You and Jim still deny there is even an issue,"
If it is an "issue" - it is a British issue not a Labout one.
Labour is by instinct an policy anti racist - the Labour Party was created with the support of Emigré Jews - the tiny handful that you have attempted to make into a Mount Everest are an out-of-step anomaly, however many there are.
Islamophobia is written into Tory Policy and is being maliciously ignored, by you and by yout Conservative friends.
You have yet to come anywhere close to describing this so-called antisemitism or how many are involved.
Yu have been told how seriosly Laboutr has dealt with the accusations and you have maliciously twisted it into an admission of guilt

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 01:01 PM

Talk to me next year, Professor Nostradamus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 12:18 PM

I am bloody sick of this. You lot are welcome to this rancid and now-pointless thread. The trolls have won - not the argument, but the destruction of debate. We have a scumbag who should have been thrown out of here years ago back with his "Jew hater" bile. I honestly don't know how you can carry on like it. I really did try.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM

Greg,
UK's will be the best performing economy in the West next year.
Says NostraTerribamus.
Time will tell............

It is already the best performing economy in the EU and the G7!
We have the highest growth, and record low unemployment that other EU states can only dream of.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:48 AM

Jim, it is OK to be pro-Israel.
Even Steve is pro-Israel.
Being pro-Israel does not mean that your views on antisemitism should be discarded.

"I am not a Labour insider. I just quote them"
No you don't -

I certainly do! I have quotede numerous lifelong Labour members including Corbyn himself and the entire NEC who all agree that there HAS been antisemitism in Labour.

Steve,
You are trolling because we have done this death,

No. You and Jim still deny there is even an issue, so it is perfectly reasonable to put hard evidence in front of you showing that it is not.
The BBC and other media outlets treat it as not just an issue, but a live, current issue so why should anyone take any notice of your denials and name calling?

Jim,
If you are going to accuse anybody of Antisemitism you need to tell us what they are guilty of not what somebody else has said

I have told you what Shah said, but Labour will not reveal all the stuff it is aware of so I can't tell you.

MAKE YOUR ACCUSATION - EVERYTHING ELSE IS HEARSAY

It is hearsay. I am telling you what prominent Labour insiders including the leadership and the entire NEC have said. Why would they lie?
Why should anyone listen to your denials in the face of all that?

Antisemitism,
It does not include criticism of Israeli terrorism

Of course it does not. Who claimed it?
It does not include suggesting that Israeli good are boycotted

Of course it does not. Who claimed it?

It does not even include suggesting that Gypsies and Jehovah's witnesses be actively acknowledged and remembered during Holocaust day

No, but to deny that they are to slander the Jews as only caring about their own suffering could well be antisemitism.

You wouldn't describe exposing a Jewish pedophile, rapist or mass murderer as "antisemitism" - or would you?

Of course not. Who claimed it?

Exposing the Israeli regime for the criminals they are and seeking to make them stop economically is not "antisemitism" - yet the Isreali regime and its supporters claim it is

No they do not. Just that antisemites would support such action.

To the Israeli Justice Minister, all criticism of Israel is Santisemitic - she said so publicly.

No she did not. I quoted her actual words. She pointed out that antisemites now can't openly criticise Jews so they attack Israel. Of course they do. That does not mean that all critics of Israel are antisemites.

They describe Jews, in Israel and outside who criticise their policies as "self-hating Jews"

They do not. Israel incorporates criticism in its constitution. It has a free media that criticise it every day and an opposition whose job is to criticise the government. If only its neighbours had the same!

Her (Shah's) statement was aimed at the Israeli regime and its supporters in the U.S

Really? Which bit was that? Quote please, or did you just make it up?

It's interesting to note that this is the only bone you pack have - one statement by one Labour Party member

If it was just that, we would not still be discussing it, but there are statements from numerous, long standing members, from the entire NEC and from the leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:46 AM

UK's will be the best performing economy in the West next year.

Says NostraTerribamus.

Time will tell............

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM

Are you intending to comment on the Conservative Party's failure to respond the way the Labour Party has to similar accusations?
Don't suppose so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM

"Yes Jim she did and that ill-worded statement was recognised as being anti-Semitic by the lady herself and yes she did apologise for having made it"
As I said, she is a politician - on the basis of what she actually said, it was a badly worded piece of rhetoric attacking the Israeli regime and its U.S. supporters - it does no compare with the use that regime is making of the Jewish People in defence of its own fascist policies.
It's interesting to note that this is the only bone you pack have - one statement by one Labour Party member
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:27 AM

Obama and his administration a whole buncha Anti-Semites:

United States Criticizes Israel Over West Bank Settlement Plan

By MARK LANDLEROCT. 5, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday castigated the Israeli government for approving plans to create a new Jewish settlement on the West Bank, three weeks after it signed a lucrative military aid package with the United States and just as President Obama was traveling to Jerusalem for the funeral of Shimon Peres.

In an uncommonly harsh statement, the State Department "strongly condemned" the move, asserting that it violated Israel's pledge not to construct new settlements and ran counter to the long-term security interests Israel was seeking to protect with the military deal, which provides $38 billion in assistance over the next decade.

The new settlement, one of a string of housing complexes that threaten to bisect the West Bank, is designed to house settlers from a nearby illegal outpost, Amona, which an Israeli court has ordered demolished.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/world/middleeast/obama-israel-west-bank-settlements.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:23 AM

"Britain's vote to exit the European Union — Brexit, in common parlance — has put its commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground."

How? In what way has what has happened to the pound, which immediately rebounded, has it put Britain's "commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground"? Our exports are now cheaper, inward investment gets a bigger bang for it's buck. explain the increasing value of our stock market and the fact that every other economic indicator is trending to the positive. UK's will be the best performing economy in the West next year. We will soon be free to negotiate our own trade deals with the world while the EU still has to flounder about getting the total agreement of 27 member states before putting pen to paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:22 AM

It does not include criticism of Israeli terrorism
It does not include suggesting that Israeli good are boycotted because of their acts of mass murder and persecution

More vicious lies whose sole purpose is to demonize a country and it's people - a classic example of virulent anti-Semitism from one of our resident Jew haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:11 AM

"She made an ill-worded statement which was viewed as antitisemitic" - Jim Carroll

Yes Jim she did and that ill-worded statement was recognised as being anti-Semitic by the lady herself and yes she did apologise for having made it - you are attempting to tell this forum that the statement was only viewed as being anti-Semitic by others it wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 10:47 AM

"Naz Shah is pro-Israeli?"
Of course not, who said she was?
She made an ill-worded statement which was viewed as antitisemitic -it wasn't - it attacked Israel, suggesting that it "relocates to the USA" - an attack on Israel, not the Jewish people. She apologised and was re-admitted into the Labour party, as she should have been "
In contrition, she now says:
"Antisemitism is manifestly real and exists within the Labour party, as it does within British society. The surge of new members – the party now has more than half a million – will no doubt reflect that."
Who could argue with that - I said the same at the beginning of the discussion?
Antisemitism is the oldest form of prejudice and exists at every level of society and certainly in every political Party."
She may have admitted that her statement was antisemitic - she is a politician who wishes to remain in the Labour Party.
Her statement was aimed at the Israeli regime and its supporters in the U.S. - not the Jewish People as a whole.
As far as I am concerned, what she said may have been over the top and badly worded, but its contents contained nothing antisemitic, or, if it was, it was far less so than the Israelis own statements, which claim that their policy is Jewish, is carried out on behalf of the Jewish People, and to criticise than policy is antisemitic.
She is one individual in a party of over half-a-million members.
If what she said is the worst any Labour Party member has said, it doesn't amount to a major problem; in my opinion, it certainly doesn't amount to Antisemitism.
You people have grabbed this one issue like a couple of rabid dogs grabbing a bone - you have not stated what this antisemitism is, you have not said how many people it involves and you have taken the fact that the Labour Party has acted responsibly they have taken this, as they should, seriously - - you have deliberately misinterpreted it as an admission of guilt - it is no such thing.
Back in May, the Tory party was accused of Islamophobia and an urgent enquiry was demanded - no action was taken.
It is particularly significant that the individual who caused these accusations to be made is a leading Conservative figure and the son of multi-billionaire, Sir James Goldsmith - mustn't strangle the golden goose.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:49 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/world/europe/for-britains-brexit-bunch-the-party-just-ended.html

LONDON — For those blithely inclined toward the view that Britain would somehow find a way to sever its relationship with the European Union free of drama or financial consequences — like canceling a car rental reservation, with a tad more paperwork — Friday was a sobering day of reckoning. The British pound was down about 17 percent — around 25 cents — since June 23, the day Britain voted to abandon Europe.

More than anything, though, the precipitous drop seemed to attest to an increasingly unmistakable reality: Britain's vote to exit the European Union — Brexit, in common parlance — has put its commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground.

The week began with an admission from Britain's new Conservative prime minister, Theresa May, that access to the European market is likely to be a casualty of Britain's pursuit of a primary aspiration expressed in the Brexit vote: imposing limits on immigration.

But Brexiteers had steadfastly maintained the illusion that Britain could have it both ways — that it could retain access to the European market while still controlling immigration. In destroying that idea, the prime minister's admission badly rattled the markets.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:35 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 08 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

"Since most Tories voted for Brexit and most Labour supporters voted against it"

And this you get from where? Do you "feel" it? "Think" it? Or "Know" it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 09:27 AM

Jim Carroll - 08 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM

"I am not a Labour insider. I just quote them" - Keith A of Hertford

No you don't - you just illude to what the por-Israelis claim

Naz Shah is pro-Israeli?

She actually admitted that her statements and views were anti-Semitic due to her ignorance and lack of knowledge. Now then Mr.Carroll are you really going to tell us that you know better about what Naz Shah said than the lady herself?