BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:36 AM

But that is the point Jim, the more you try to "reform" the system the less wealth is produced and the poorest always suffer.

I repeat.....We need to reform ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:40 AM

BTW.....Tories are not hypocrites, they actually believe in this economic system. They may be right, most of us are better off financially than when I was a boy, but are we "happier"....and is it sustainable?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:53 AM

They are hypocrites because they like to enjoy all the trappings of living in a wealthy country, NHS OR private, public schools OR state, big houses that attract hardly any more council tax than much smaller ones, second homes that leave "desirable" villages and seaside towns like ghost towns for eleven months of the year (and,naturally, their accountants will look after their tax avoidance schemes), yet when lefties try to intrude in any way on this lush set of choices, they're "abandoning their principles!" The only "principles" Tories have are those relating to looking after number one. They find them very hard to "abandon," of course, so THEY, unlike those pesky and vociferous lefties (who probably live on benefits anyway) remain above criticism for being hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:06 AM

The only way we will ever change this society is through principle and real socialism means the abdication of "self" in the common good how many really even understand that principle never mind put it into practice......I am fortunate to remember such a society it was full of socialists who thought they were Tories.

Now we have political parties full of Tories who think they are socialists......or rather pretend they are socialists.

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

As ever, your utter confusion about all this precludes any possibility of a productive conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 08:12 AM

"I repeat.....We need to reform ourselves!"
And what exactly - we act on our own principles and our children suffer - until when???
Till they decide to give us a better system presumably - your Pie in the Sky again
You are suggesting we play by the rules and live under what they decide to dish out to us.
I have no idea which planet your "socialism" comes from but it certainly isn't part of this Galaxy
I've asked you to propose alternatives in the past - you decline to do so.
Now you suggest that we just do as we are told.
Sheesh!!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:29 AM

But Raggy, the hypocrites in the Labour Party at the time were all for forcing right to buy for tenants in privately owned property that was rented out - "Do as I say, not as I do", coupled with another good "socialist" maxim, "Everything must be shared, until it's our stuff that has to be shared".

Their own rent acts meant that they could not maintain their housing stock that was rapidly turning into post-war slums.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:38 AM

"But Raggy, the hypocrites in the Labour Party at the time were all for forcing right to buy for tenants in privately owned property that was rented out "
The target of the "Right-to-buy" scheme was aimed at ending Council Housing - nothing to do with private landlords.
That was why it was opposed by the "hypocrites"
END OF COUNCIL HOUSING
Socialism has s.f.a to do with "sharing out" - that is a Tory myth ad a very outdated one.
It is about equality of opportunity, not of possessions not wealth.
Who said dinosaurs were extinct?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 11:52 AM

Simple questions for you T.

1.Were council houses sold off at a discount to sitting tenants.

2. Were those houses replaced with new stock by said councils.

A yes or No will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

"THIS IS THE CRISIS THAT MAGGIE BUILT"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM

Mrs Thatcher only provided the opportunity for "socialists" to become capitalists and didn't they just dive for the trough?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:19 PM

The sale of council houses involves massive discounts to tenants, at the expense of the owners. The owners being the community as a whole. A very significant reason for imposing this policy was in order to influence voting choice. This was admitted by Margaret Thatcher and others.

A similar policy applied to private housing, with landlords compelled to sell property at significantly less than that properties cost, would be described as theft, and almost certainly be deemed illegal in court.

All this was made worse by policies by governments for decades which forbade councils from using the money received in these confiscatory cutprice sales to build new houses.

The more recent twist is where councils are compelled to sell any houses which have higher market value, and for this money to be confiscated to provide sizeable discounts to tenants of housing associations, which are compelled to sell these properties to tenants.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:22 PM

This adds up to a new way of understanding the old maxim of Proudhin - "Property is Theft".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 01:32 PM

it is becoming apparent, that the Labour parties support of the remain campaign was played down in the UK Media, and then Corbyns so called lack of enthusiasm for remain[ a media myth] was used afterwards to attack his leadership

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 02:27 PM

Indeed. The Prime Minister's policy was to remain. Only 43% of 2015 Tory voters followed him. Jeremy Corbyn's policy was to remain. 69% of 2015 Labour voters followed him. Another piece of right-wing media bullshit blown out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 16 - 07:27 PM

For Corbyn to be blamed by Tory Remainers wouldn't really matter - you'd expect that from them. But for Labour MP's to pretend that he was was responsible for failing to turn that 69% into 100% or whatever, was pretty absurd and completely irresponsible.

Corbyn's recognition that the EU is far from perfect, but that it should be supported was in fact the best way to convince doubters to opt for Remain - and it very largely succeeded.If MPs in constituencies with heavy Brexit voting had been more effective in persuading their constituencies of this, the result would have been different.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 16 - 07:45 AM

"to become capitalists and didn't they just dive for the trough?"
Your contempt for working people who attempt to better themselves in the prevailing system is palpable.
What did you expect them to do - sit on their hands and wait for the next bus to your 'Big Rock Candy Mountain'?
Your understanding of the term "capitalism" is just as risible - to be a "capitalist" you need to be living off the proceeds of invested capital - that's what the term means.
Owning your own home doesn't enter into the equation.
Your ignorance of politics rivals that of Teribus's, and is just as archaic - and that's saying something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Oct 16 - 12:58 PM

See Corbyn is calling for demonstrations outside the American Embassy, to balance criticism of Russia's efforts in Syria. Surprised that he hasn't also called for demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament to protest our involvement.

Needless to say he ignores the fact that:

1: Russia is supplying the weaponry that Assad needs to prosecute the war against his own population

2: Russian efforts since they involved themselves has been more against moderate rebel forces and the civilian population that support them than against ISIS.

3: That many accuse Russian Forces of war crimes against the Syrian people.

Can anybody tell me if "The Leader" has criticised Russian actions in Syria?

Has he any comments related to Putin's desire to acquire a permanent Russian Naval Base in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM

What Corbyn is actually saying - bot to "alance" criticism, but to ascertain that all war crimes and abuses are dealt with
Jim Carroll

Jeremy Corbyn believes Boris Johnson's focus on halting Russian airstrikes in Syria "diverts attention" from other atrocities in the country, including those committed by the US-led coalition, a spokesman for the Labour leader has said.
Corbyn had condemned the Russian attacks, "as he has condemned the intervention by all outside forces in the Syrian civil war", the spokesman said, but warned that "the focus on Russian atrocities in Syria sometimes diverts attention from other atrocities that are taking place".
Analysis Reality check: are US-led airstrikes on Syrians as bad as Russia's?
The Labour party has implied that the civilian death toll from coalition bombings is comparable to that from Russian ones
The remarks were made at a briefing of journalists after prime minister's questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
"Independent assessments are that there have been very large-scale civilian casualties as a result of the US-led coalition bombing. There are several cases of large numbers of deaths in single attacks, and there hasn't been as much focus on those casualties," the spokesman said.
The foreign secretary had called for protests outside the Russian embassy in London in response to the bombing of Aleppo and to put pressure on Moscow to agree to a ceasefire.
The Labour spokesman said said he wasn't drawing a "moral equivalence" between Russia's actions and those of the US, but when asked whether it was as equally legitimate for the public to protest outside the US embassy as the Russian, he replied: "People are free to protest outside the intervening powers' embassies, and there are a number of them." Asked if that included the US, he said, "obviously".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 08:53 AM

"The Labour party has implied that the civilian death toll from coalition bombings is comparable to that from Russian ones"

The Labour Party has trouble with arithmetic does it Jim?


Quote 1:
"The coalition kills too many civilians but it is clear they are trying to limit those deaths, while everything we understand about the way Russia is behaving shows they are deliberately targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure," said Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

Quote 2:
"That means the Russians' death rate probably outpaces the coalition by a rate of eight to one," Woods said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 10:21 AM

"The Labour Party has trouble with arithmetic does it Jim?"
Has it, and does it matter that one side kills more than the other - aren't they both reprehensible and worthy of your condemnation - or, like your obsession with semantics, are you happy to excuse morder because there aren't enough dead?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 12:33 PM

"Has it, and does it matter that one side kills more than the other"

Shouldn't that be - "It has, and does matter to mention and make the differentiation that one side {The Russians} deliberately targets kills civilians causing eight times the death toll than the other side {US & UK} who make all possible efforts to avoid civilian casualties and target ISIS" - see the difference Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

We never know the actual truth about all this kind of thing until many years later, if then.

While our eyes are focussed on Aleppo, in Yemen the Saudis are busily doing precisely the same kind of thing.

And in Syria, while the Russians join in on one side, the Saudis join in on .the other, ensuring that the war keeps going.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 02:46 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 13 Oct 16 - 01:24 PM

"We never know the actual truth about all this kind of thing until many years later, if then."

If that is the case Kevin where is your rightful condemnation of Labour Party "spokesmen" making inaccurate, misleading and irresponsible pronouncements as though they were fact.

While US and others have been attacking ISIS target very successfully the Russians and Assad have been attacking Aleppo - what ISIS targets are there in Aleppo Kevin?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 16 - 06:08 PM

l understand, from UN news sources, that there at least 9,000 jihadist troops in Aleppo, with much the same ideology as Isis, and that they are understood to be the most effective fighting forces on the rebel side, and the backbone of the continued resistance.

That may or may not be true. That's what I meant - we don't know so many things you'd need to know. Stopping all outside intervention would seem to make sense. But it's not going to happen. All increased intervention just threatens to make things worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 03:36 AM

Semantics Kevin, there may well be 9,000 Rebel fighters in Aleppo but as far as anyone knows the ISIS flag has never been seen in Aleppo. There are no ISIS targets in Aleppo which is under constant attack by Assad and the Russian Air force so far they have bombed hospitals and aid convoys and have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrian civilians who they are deliberately targeting according to Chris Woods, the director of Monitoring group Airwars.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 06:14 AM

"Shouldn't that be - "It has,"
No it most certainly does not
Tha Labour Party seem to be regarding all killing of civilian as reprehensible unlike yourself, who has to count the bodies before deciding whether it should be condemned.
The U.S's track record of killing whoever gets in the way goes before them - they've even invented new terms - "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" to make it sound less serious than it is.
No need to mention the Russians - we see it on our television screens and Russia isn't considered an ally, as America is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

Sadly the mentally of some of the people on this forum seem to consider that if YOU killed 99 of OUR people and WE managed to 100 of YOUR people that WE have won.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

The 9000 jihadis in Aleppo are indeed not Isis - they are Al Qaeda. That why I said that they essentially had the same ideology as Isis.

Yes, hospitals have been bombed in Aleppo. That also happened in Afghanistan, with the Americans, in Yemen, with the Saudis and in Gaza with the Israelis. No one has clean hands.

It is clear that there were people on both sides who wanted the recent ceasefire to fail, and they succeeded. Sooner or later there will be a ceasefire that holds, because that's the only way wars end, and all wars do end eventually. The priority on both sides needs to be to identify those who wrecked the ceasefire and neutralize them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 04:31 AM

Raggytash - 14 Oct 16 - 03:50 PM

Sadly the mentally of some of the people on this forum seem to consider that if YOU killed 99 of OUR people and WE managed to 100 of YOUR people that WE have won.

Really Raggy? Who on this forum has stated anything even remotely like that? Or are these your famous lack of comprehension skills being demonstrated again?

Mind you there have been historical precedents under which such a claim to victory could be made if the conflict was of the same type as "The Clan Fight at Perth" where if both sides consisted of 100 men then the side who did kill 100 would undoubtedly and justifiably claim victory.

What has been pointed out here Raggy is that the Russians and Assad are deliberately targeting and killing civilians in Syria, while others are not. If you doubt that then take it up with the organisation monitoring civilian deaths in Syria, the chaps name is Chris Woods of Airwars, perhaps you should read their Report entitled "A Reckless Disregard" that covered civilian deaths during the first three months of Russian airstrikes in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 07:43 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 14 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

The 9000 jihadis in Aleppo are indeed not Isis - they are Al Qaeda

Are they really Kevin? Where did you get this information from? The same Labour spokesperson with the track record of coming out with unverified, incorrect, inaccurate, misrepresentative and irresponsible statements. WOW 9,000 people inside Aleppo fighting against Assad and they are all members of Al-Qaeda. Any idea of the number and make-up of the multiplicity of groups fighting against Assad Kevin - if not I would suggest that you do some research of your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 08:31 AM

It is true that there is a bewildering number of armed opposition groups in Syria - in 2013 a BBC "Guide to the Syrian rebels" estimated 1,000 such groups.

Among these those aspiring to create an Islamic State are said to be the most effective fighting force. Of course the term "Islamic State" can mean a range of things - Iran, Arabia and Isis would all claim that description, and deny it to the others. However a very sizeable number do have a close affinity with Isis or with Al Qaeda. The leading UN diplomat Stefan de Mistura offered to accompany such fighters out of Aleppo to Isis territory in a bid to end the bloodshed in Aleppo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 09:40 AM

I know that if we were to go back to any of the WW1 threads you have espoused exactly that.

We killed more of them than they did of us, ergo we won.

Like I said, pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 03:27 PM

Raggytash - 15 Oct 16 - 09:40 AM

I know that if we were to go back to any of the WW1 threads - I'd run circles round your idiotic contentions again as I did before.

The debate in those threads Raggy centred on whether or not the British, Commonwealth and Empire forces in general were "well led" in comparison to the other combatant powers of 1914. My contention was, along with a whole host of historians who have specialised in the period and in the subject, that a soldier stood a better chance of surviving had he fought under British Command than had he fought in any other Army. 9 out of every 10 men who served under British Command survived that was not the case in the armies of Germany, France, Austro-Hungary and Russia.

It is an undeniable fact that the Entente Powers won the First World War. Now if you do wish to pursue this - Open a thread on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 05:29 PM

I think that I agree with Mr McGrath here....if they are not "with us they are against us"   They are all Terrorists, these so called moderate rebels don't walk around with protest placards round their necks, they are armed to the teeth and have been offered safe passage out of Aleppo.

If three years ago we had bombed Assad into submission it would have been clear by now what kind of democracy they wish to propagate.

Yes civilians are being killed, that is a fact of civil war, a worse crime was the Napalming of huge areas of Vietnam by our very own champions of democracy.

This conflict has been created in a power struggle between East and West....as was the whole concept of the Arab Spring, but the Genie of IF is now out of the bottle and must be got back in pretty damned quick and that demands co-operation, not warlike noises off.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 06:40 PM

The rationale for civilian deaths in Aleppo from Russian and Syrian government air strikes is of course that these are unintended victims resulting from civilians being used as human shields by militants - which is precisely the same as that given by the British and French after mass casualties in Syria (and elsewhere), as for example in the village of Toukhan Al-Kubra in July when an estimated 140 civilians died. (An incident which seems to have been ignored by the British media, though it led to an official protest lodged with the UN by the Syrian government.) Or of course by Israel in the Gaza conflicts. "Collateral damage".

In all cases there is probably an element in the claim that civilian deaths are not the primary aim - in this they differ from terror bombing in World War II, culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but what is missing is recognition of the essential principle of proportionality in waging war. Civilian casualties always must be held down to a minimum, even where this inhibits military activities. That is why using civilians as human shields is also seen as a war crime, whichever side does it.

If it comes to war crimes trials once this war is over, the Russians and the Syrian government should not be the only ones in the dock.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 16 - 06:41 PM

a worse crime was the Napalming of huge areas of Vietnam by our very own champions of democracy.

Oh, well, then its all right, innit?

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 03:49 AM

In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people. 

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

"vile' abuse of Jewish people."
Was that "vile abuse" described in any way? - no?- thought not!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 04:29 AM

"Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour party."
Guardian version of the report
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 04:30 AM

Take it up with them Jim, write to the Chairman of the Committee, or better still read their report for yourself. You can then tell them and everybody else what they actually did mean - after all you do automatically assume that you know more about everything than anybody else don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM

"In the press today:

House of Commons all party Home Affairs Select Committee accuses the 'incompetent' Labour leader of allowing 'vile' abuse of Jewish people."

This is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation. In other words, you're lying. No-one except you has referred to an incompetent leader unqualified. Go back and read the reports properly before you come here to comment on them. It wouldn't be half so bad If this lying hadn't come from the man who picks other people up for nitpicked trifles.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:06 AM

Is this "anti Semitism" thing really worth all the verbiage?

Humanity holds a complicated arrangement of views, I'm afraid there will always be those who will be anti something or other....anti Catholic anti Jew, anti communist, anti Russian, anti American.

It is how human nature works.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM

Anti is one thing. Prejudice, hate speech, discrimination, persecution and unjustified verbal or physical attacks are entirely another. Get the difference clear in your head so that you can join the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:34 AM

From Free Speech on Israel, whose sentiment is that anti Zionism is not antisemitism:

House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report:                  

Depends on evidence from almost exclusively pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn sources
Advocates re-defining antisemitism so as to intimidate and silence pro-Palestinian voices, including making it a punishable offence to use the word Zionist "in an accusatory context"
Dismisses the Chakrabarti Report's principled recommendations for fair and transparent disciplinary Labour Party procedures in cases of alleged antisemitism and other forms of racism, proposing draconian, politically motivated measures instead
London, October 16 – The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee today issued a Report on Antisemitism in the UK that, while correctly identifying the far Right as the source of most hate crime, shows such bias in its sources and assessment of evidence that it calls into question the committee's reputation and competence.

The Report, from a Tory dominated committee, takes up the weapons that have been used to try to unseat Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader by smearing those he has attracted to the Party with charges of antisemitism. The apparent collusion of Labour committee members reflects the dirty war being waged against Corbyn's radical leadership by elements within the party.   

Prof Jonathan Rosenhead, from the Jewish-led campaign group Free Speech on Israel (FSOI), said the select committee had aligned itself with extreme pro-Israel advocates, by setting restrictive limits on what may and may not be said, threatening to close down free speech on Israel and Palestine.

"The dire record of antisemitism over the centuries and especially in the last one means that vigilance is essential," said Prof Rosenhead. "But antisemitism is not, currently, the major racist threat in this country; nor is it a significant problem in the Labour Party. This report loses all sense of proportion. It risks actually weakening the defences against true antisemitism ('hatred of Jews as Jews') by trying to extend its meaning to include many legitimate criticisms of Israel.

"For those of us who argue, along with many other Jews and Israelis, that the Zionist project has inflicted intolerable injustice on the Palestinians, the adjective 'Zionist' inevitably has an 'accusatory' aspect. But it is directed against the State of Israel and its founding ideology, not against Jews."

So, bearing in mind the makeup of this committee, a gleeful collection made up from Corbyn's opponents, what did we expect? I predict that the anticorbynistas here will adopt this report as the latest gospel. The Chakrabarti report was done with far greater integrity, and I look forward to similar self-examinations by UKIP and the Tories. My God, there'd be some uncomfortable reading there - except that, of course, unlike Labour's, any reports they ever came up with would be spun out of recognition. Today marks a low point for parliamentary democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 06:39 AM

"Take it up with them Jim, write to the Chairman of the Committee"
Why on earth should I have to take it up with a bunch of Parliamentary politicians dominated by the right wing who are unanimously opposed to a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn?
You have had their conclusions, but you carefully avoid answering the points about the 75% extremist right wingers, and the bit about there being no evidence that claimed antisemitism is no worse than ity is in other parties.
You cam make any point you wish is you leave out all the inconvenient facts.
And once again - you or they produce no examples of Labour Antisemisism - accusations without facts are no more than unsubstantiated smears.
Keith's Jewish 'pact of silence' has a lot to answer for!
When will you people accept that if you accuse somebody of something, you have to at least identify what you are accusing them of by providing details?
This gets more and more bizarre
"Is this "anti Semitism" thing really worth all the verbiage?"
I first thought you were quoting somebody when you put this up Ake
Does anybody with any intelligence or humanity believe that 6 million deaths should come second to the right to openly express bigotry and hatred?
Unbelievable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:07 AM

Jim, your quote was of Corbyn, not the report!!
The Guardian's version that you linked to says the same as Teribus posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

The acting chair of the committee told Andrew Marr today that Chakrabarti's report was a "whitewash" and "not worth the paper it was printed on."

Steve, again you accuse someone of lying when they did not.
Use Jim's link to the Guardian's report on it.

"Jeremy Corbyn has come under strong personal attack from a cross-party committee of MPs investigating the growth of antisemitism for helping to create a safe space for people with "vile attitudes towards Jewish people".

In a damning indictment of the party and its leader, the powerful home affairs select committee claims that Corbyn's lack of action "risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic". In the report, published on Sunday , Labour is said to have been "demonstrably incompetent" in dealing with incidents of anti-Jewish abuse.

An inquiry into antisemitism in Labour carried out by Shami Chakrabarti on the orders of Corbyn earlier this year is described as "ultimately compromised". Its independence was thrown into doubt by Chakrabarti's acceptance of a peerage and a job in the shadow cabinet, the committee writes.
   
The MPs criticise Chakrabarti for describing antisemitic abuse as merely "unhappy incidents", and note her failure to respond to requests for a timeline proving that there was no connection between her elevation to the Lords and her inquiry. They write: "Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:24 AM

"The Guardian's version that you linked to says the same as Teribus posted."
And carefully didn't post the source - probably The Daily Mail one, which carefully omitted the relevant bits.
Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties.
Are you suggesting he is lying and if so, do you have proof that he is or should your claim be judged alongside your 'Jewish Parliamentary plot' one?
Your little gang really is determined to smear Labour without providing evidence.
Keep it up boys - it all helps to make a somewhat uneventful Sunday entertaining.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

The remarks reported by Teribus were not in the report. He knew it and yiu know it. You are both lying. As I said, it is so predictable that you should take this report as gospel. After all, it it was produced almost as exclusively by Tories and a few Labour anti-Corbynites.