BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:42 AM

Ruth Smeeth, an ardent opponent of Corbyn, was criticised for collaborating with a right-wing newspaper by a lifelong campaigner against racism who did not know that she was Jewish. She then staged a histrionic walkout, accompanied by fake tears. So much for your "certainly." All this was witnessed. You have no more cause for certainty than I have over that incident. Neither of us was there and we merely have reports in the newspapers. I hope you never get called for jury service.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM

"Of course you think it is great stuff Shaw, it agrees with your point of view, "
Of course it's great stuff - it is a Jewish view of what is going on, and it needs answering
You people say the Jewish view is being ignored, but every Jewish opinion which does not line up with Israeli policy is either dismissed as lies or ignored.
This so-called "antisemitism" is not about The Jewish People - it is about defending an increasingly extremist right-wing regime who have taken the Jewish Dream and are turning it into a fascist, monotheistic State - and murdering a lot of innocent people in the process.
"It is however only one person's opinion "
Your own opinion and Keith's are individually "one persons" - neither of you - you in particular, ever produce anything to back up what you claim.
You have been given similar facts - from progressive Rabbis, from Holocaust survivors and their descendants, from groups like Jews for Justice, from newspapers like Haaretz - even going back as far as Albert Einstein... on the deterioration of the State of Israel - either no comment or outright rejection (usually "a load of bollocks").
Both you and Keith have invented facts to back up your spurious arguments
You have show us no evidence that the complainant in the Labour Party have done what you claim they have done - there is no evidence of their doing and it lacks logic - SO IT IS YOUR OWN INVENTION
As for Keith's 'Jewish pact of silence' - that is as antisemitic a statement as I have heard made against a group of responsible and intelligent Jews for a long, long time.
Nobody has ignored anything other than you.
I took the trouble to follow up Ruth Smeethe and found her direct connection to the Israeli regime, including her attending a Nessunyahu planning conference.
I presented the same connections regarding others who have complained.
I pointed out that these complaints only started shortly after Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S. - you refuse even to acknowledge that fact -
Where is you evidence for any of your claims - you don't give any on principle and Keith denies making the antisemitic claims he has made.
You both dismiss linked evidence as my "made up shit", and when I produce further evidence, you just do a runner from your accusations - you never apologies and you ever withdraw your accusations.
You are both star debaters - you come here to exchange ideas in order to reach some reasonable conclusion - every debating team should have one I DON'T ***** THINK!
You really need to get your act together - the pair of you (we need Bobad to stay as he is to remind us just what we are dealing with)
The case is a simple one - if you can't prove your accusations - against the Labour Party, against a petty thief - against a mass murderer - against anybody accused of anything in this country - THEN YOU HAVE NO CASE - UNQUALIFIED ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH
Now - tell us all about my "rant", or maybe you might like to pick up on my typos, instead of responding to my points - that's usually what you do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:49 AM

Of course you think it is great stuff Shaw, it agrees with your point of view, and we all know how much you hate dissent, or any departure from the Party line dictated by "The Leader".

It is however only one person's opinion and I note that rather selectively he ignored the accusations made by Ruth Smeeth, Alex Chalmers, and others who most certainly have experienced anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM

Fantastic stuff. I disagree with him about Naz Shah, but fantastic stuff anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:20 PM

As a Jewish Labour member, I'm sick of anti-Semitism being used as a political weapon against Jeremy Corbyn
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who wear swastikas as badges of honour. Where was your concern for my community then?

Michael Segalov @mikesegalov Monday 26 September 2016235 comments

Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti, who published the Labour anti-Semitism report Getty
It's become an all too regular occurrence, waking up to headlines reporting that anti-Semitism in the Labour party is now an endemic problem, and that bad feeling against Jewish people in the party is on an upward trajectory.

As a Jewish Labour Party member, they are stories that should have me alarmed. I know from experience just how dangerous anti-Semitism can really be: vast swathes of my ancestors were lost to the murderous hands of the Nazis, and observant Jewish friends of mine have been harassed and attacked on British streets. I've read the slurs, faced the trolls, had neo-Nazis shout abuse in my face.

Campaign against anti-antisemitism launches complaint against Corbyn
And yet it's not just anger against bigots that hits as I scan story after story, but frustration towards those trying to use an all too real threat facing my community for their own political gain. Since Corbyn's election as Labour leader, unsupportive MPs, campaigning groups and journalists have been desperate to paint him and the movement who support him as anti-Semitic fanatics, despite knowing it's really not the case.

I could tell you about my own experiences, how I've never experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism inside the party – but that's just what I've seen, non-Jewish defenders of my religion will claim. My experiences, and those of countless other Corbyn-supporting Jewish members who I've spoken to, aren't reflective of what's really going on, apparently.
Just a few months ago, I found myself sat in the Channel 4 News studio, tasked with discussing anti-Semitism under Corbyn. Sat opposite me was John Woodcock MP, desperate to tell me it's the "hard-left" who are "associated [with] Soviet Russia" with anti-Semitic views infiltrating the party who were responsible for stirring up hatred.
Now, we only need look at the most high-profile of cases to see that anti-Semitism is by no means a product of Corbyn's supporters. Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, was rightly suspended for sharing anti-Semitic posts on Facebook, not a Corbynite but a backer of Yvette Cooper in the last leadership election. Ken Livingstone, similarly sanctioned for his remarks about Hitler, has been a party grandee for decades. An insurgent? I think not.
Woodcock pointed me towards "a rise in anti-Semitic incidents" within the party, without having a single statistic or figure to back it up. It's an answer I hear time and time again, and for those of us – Jewish or otherwise – committed to fighting anti-Semitism, enough is enough.
It's tiring and it's frustrating, but moreover it's frankly dangerous.
For years now I've travelled across the UK to report from far-right, fascist and neo-Nazi rallies, and the counter-demonstrations that take place alongside. I've seen the real threat that faces Jews in the country, those who profess hatred for Jews and our religion, who wear swastikas as badges of honour, who'll salute like a Nazi in front of your face. Where was your concern for my community then?
Jeremy Corbyn's campaign team tackle accusations of anti-Semitism
It's not just the distinct absence of those MPs in Labour who now claim to be at the forefront of the fight against anti-Jewish prejudice that's striking, but the presence of those they now claim to be British Jewry's biggest threat.
It's the left, and Corbyn's supporters, who've put their bodies on the line time and time again to protect us from these racist organisations.
That's why these cries of anti-Semitism make a mockery of a real and present danger. Corbyn's commitment to fighting discrimination and prejudice has been well documented for decades. His supporters are those who've stood alongside him. Accusing these people now of peddling prejudice is nothing but political point-scoring at its worst. It undermines real hatred, and waters down the impact of calling out anti-Semitism when it rears its ugly head.

I'm not saying Labour members haven't experienced anti-Semitism inside the Labour Party, and of course, a progressive movement like Labour should hold itself to higher standards than other organisations. Those few who blindly label all incidents of anti-Semitism as anti-Corbyn slander and restrictions on critiquing Israel need to listen to the voices of victims and let conversations about Judaism and Israel be led by Jewish members: we are here and we know how to speak.

The most ridiculous claims made about Jeremy Corbyn

11
This isn't to say I don't value the concern, but I want to make a few things perfectly clear. Anti-Semitism is not a problem particular to Labour; using the words "Judaism" and "Israel" interchangeably is just as (if not more) common on the right as on the left.
Oppression, discrimination and Jewish identity are complex; the relationship between our religion and the state of Israel is constantly debated; disagreements will happen inside our community. Let us lead these discussions. Don't quickly take sides simply to advance your faction, angle or personal interests.
And if you're truly concerned about fighting racism and anti-Semitism, I look forward to seeing you stand alongside us in meetings and on the streets.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html

Some of the responses are well worth reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM

hThe Charkrabati report was published a quarter of a year ago
What are these "spare the blushes" members waiting for - to send the details out on Christmas cards?
It was a crass invention any way.
Most of these complainants are declared anti-Corbynites who claim he is an embarrassment to the Labour Party
What a wonderful chance it would have been to bring him down in the leadership struggle if they had published the details
Spare my arse rather!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM

"In todays papers" [sic] - cor, that's authoritative, innit! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM

"Seriously cast into doubt," eh? Cor, that would go down well in court. You say the report was a whitewash, brainlessly parroting just about every pro-Israel commentator. Well I "seriously doubt" that you have any solid evidence for either a deliberate whitewash or any other sort of put-up job. "They're reds and what more do you need" -- now where did I hear that in a song...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 01:59 PM

"No idea Carroll "
Back to your old Neanderthal persona I see.
Scratch a caveman.. as they say
There is nothing whatever to stop any of these people going public
Until they do, all unqualified accusations are no more than unqualified accusations
You've not read Chakrabarti's recommendations have you?"
Yes Ihave, and I can find no specified reasons linking them to antisemitism
The report has been in the hands of the Israeli Press for months now and they haven't bother to specify what they are guilty of   
I have no doubt whatever that those making the complaints are perfectly free to enlighten us all - why haven't they - another "Jewish pact of silence"?
Still no comment on the 8 weeks gap between support for BDS and the accusations - wonder why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 01:42 PM

In todays papers - "a Labour review has found Ms Eagle was subjected to homophobic abuse and had her office bricked because she challenged Mr Corbyn." - that along with death threats.

"Why should those making accusations want to "spare Labour's blushes"?"

No idea Carroll I didn't say it was those who made the accusations who wanted to "spare Labour's blushes". What those members of the Labour Party and Members of the Parliamentary who did table complaints believed was that their Party would investigate those complaints and support them - what a mistake that was on their part. I would suggest that certain members who sat on Labour's NEC decided that they could sweep the matter under the carpet and that they went to extraordinary lengths to do so - all unsuccessful, all they have succeeded in doing is aggravating the problem and seriously cast into doubt any claim or pretence that Shami Chakrabarti's report and inquiry was anything other than a "whitewash". Between Corbyn, his advisors and the NEC they could not have done a worse job had they tried.

"How many of them remain suspended and if they were foung guilty, why weren't they expelled?"

You've not read Chakrabarti's recommendations have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:54 PM

"So that those wishing to spare the Labour Party Leaders blushes could commission a second "independent" Inquiry"
Why should those making accusations want to "spare Labour's blushes"?
Almost as stupid as Keith's Jewish pact of silence invention
"Well I dare say that those who were accused and suspended did have specific instances explained to them."
How many of them remain suspended and if they were foung guilty, why weren't they expelled?
Unspecified accusations have been made - before we can decide whether they are justified we have to know what they are.
The accusers haven't specified the charges, the press that has gone in mob-handed haven't specified the charges
This gets more and more like a Stalinist show trial.
No specified charges, no crime
It is blatantly obvious that the Labour Party is guilty of condemning Israel and nothing more - the committee's "new racism" makes that obvious.
None of your team have addressed the fact that Labour's "antisemitism" appeared within weeks of their declaring support for the BDS boycott.
You want to prove Labour guilty then you have to state what they are guilty of - I know you aren't strong on democracy and free speech, but even you have to accept that.
Can we assume by your silence that you tried to mislead us on your claims that "The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing" and you are refusing to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:24 PM

" Chakrabarti's report was rushed out to the public because it was the "whitewash" required by the Leader."

Evidence please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

I think the salient point is whether the whole shenanigans was simply bad timing (Labour are good at that) and nothing to do with shady deals and secret promises. It doesn't matter whether you think "it doesn't look good." What matters is your evidence. As I've said a number of times, Shami Chakrabarti has long been known as a person of honesty and integrity. Which doesn't mean she was incapable of doing a dodgy deal. But the onus here is on the accusers. Corbyn has said that the offer of a peerage only came after the report was published. Who knows. I've read the report and it looked pretty sound to me. I've also read the select committee report and, to me, it was riddled with flaws. And, basically, it's a Tory document completely unleavened by any voice even remotely sympathetic to Jeremy Corbyn. That didn't seem right to me. In the meantime, antisemitism in the Tory party, the LibDems, UKIP, the Catholic Church, the Church of England and the golf club down the road goes unchallenged. Labour had a go. You may think it wasn't much of a go, but they had a go. The rest of you, look to yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:09 PM

1: One wonders why anybody should want the type of antisemitim that the Labour Party has been accused of to be kept secret.

So that those wishing to spare the Labour Party Leaders blushes could commission a second "independent" Inquiry into anti-Semitism and after making sure the content of the first inquiry would not be published, your second inquiry could serve as a cover up and "whitewash" job. That is what was attempted, but it didn't come off.

2: "Before you can make such claims you have to specify what they are being accused of."

Well I dare say that those who were accused and suspended did have specific instances explained to them. The open and transparent Labour Party saw fit to keep such information from the public. I can think of a number of perfectly good and valid reasons for them doing this. But it is wrong to say that because none of this was disclosed that there were no grounds for the suspensions

3: "The contents of the Chakrabati Report were leaked - if they contained anything damning we would have known the nature of the accusations long before now."

You've got that wrong Jim - It was the content of Baroness Royall's Report that was "leaked" after Labour's NEC attempted to keep it secret and "in-house". What has still come into the public domain are the details and specifics of Baroness Royall's Inquiry.

Recently elevated Baroness Chakrabarti's report was rushed out to the public because it was the "whitewash" required by the Leader.

4: On recommendations those from Baroness Royall's Inquiry required urgent and immediate attention. Those from Baroness Chakrabarti's report granted a statute of limitations on all past transgressions to make the Safe Place referred to the Commons Home Affairs Committee and basically kill off any action recommended by Baroness Royall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:58 AM

Maybe it's over pedentic to point out that the date when Corbyn and Chakrabarti talked about the possibility of her going to the Lords and the date when she was invited to do so might have been very different dates. Years apart, even,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:50 AM

"Getting back to this totally open and fully transparent Labour Party that Steve Shaw says exists."

I don't know which Steve Shaw you're referring to, but it isn't this one. Those words have never crossed my lips. Oops, sorry, Teribus. My typing fingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:12 AM

... his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

That does not suggest in any way that anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism, and I do not think it should.

I can't follow your meaning here Keith. It seems to me that here they are suggesting precisely what you say they do not suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 11:10 AM

" Now why would either want that to make sure that date remains secret?"
One wonders why anybody should want the type of antisemitim that the Labour Party has been accused of to be kept secret.
Before you can make such claims you have to specify what they are being accused of.
The contents of the Chakrabati Report were leaked - if they contained anything damning we would have known the nature of the accusations long before now.
Is it customary to make such enquiries into all recommendations - I've never come across it?
"The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing "
In fact, this statement is incorrect - the request for this information did not come from the Committee, but from Labour M.P. for Ilford North, Wes Streeting, who has already stated that the Labour Party is not overrun by antisemites.
Streeting has made his own self-interest clear by declaring that "if there was a new election in Ilford North with "a Corbynist candidate" it would result in a Conservative victory".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 10:36 AM

Getting back to this totally open and fully transparent Labour Party that Steve Shaw says exists.

The Home Affairs Committee have now asked both Jeremy Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti on the timing of when they talked about her being put forward for a seat in the House of Lords. Pretty straightforward question wouldn't you think? Yet neither will state the date on which that conversation took place.

Don't know about you Shaw but I sure as hell remember the date someone made that sort of offer to me. Now why would either want that to make sure that date remains secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 06:13 AM

"Steve, you have stopped discussing the issues and only appear to call names and make personal attacks."

There's plenty of me discussing issues in this thread. The trouble with you, Keith, is that you never discuss anything in an honest way. You have your pro-Israel agenda from which you will not stray and you automatically twist what anyone says to the contrary. That isn't discussing. If I've "stopped discussing," it at least puts me one up on you, who has never even started discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:42 AM

"No. It is an internal Labour issue which they choose to deal with internally."
That's what I said you said - the Jewish members put the interests of their party before those of the Jewish people.
As you have produced no evidence whatever that this was the case you invented it.
It was an invented antisemitic smear aimed at the Jewish members of the Labour Party
You could, of course produce evidence that this was the case by linking statements to it having happened.
If it was true it would mean those Jews covering up evidence of antisemitism had carried out an act of antisemitism by hiding vidence - but I don't believe that to be the case - I don't believe in Jewish plots, as you apparently do to have invented one.
Why is it laughable to reject an accusation because there is no evidence - your Alice in Wonderland world gets more and more bizarre.
I expect the Red Queen to shout "Off with their heads" any minute.
This is insane, it really is!!!
"I believe the accused to be guilty - I have no evidence but you're barmy not to believe me, your Worship"
You couldn't make it up - but you just have.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:23 AM

For crying out loud what does this mean:

"and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:41 AM

Jim,
You have no case, these accusations have no basis and unless they are properly presented with details and faces,

No. It is an internal Labour issue which they choose to deal with internally.
Is your case that there are no accusations, because that is laughable Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:37 AM

Rag, this is your quote of me.
"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people"

That does not suggest in any way that anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism, and I do not think it should.
You however stated that it was a different argument.

Steve, you have stopped discussing the issues and only appear to call names and make personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:01 AM

By the way Keith
Your efforts on this thread haven't all ben a wast of time - your "Jewish silence" claims have added antisemitism to your C.V.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:53 AM

"I never have. They reported it to the relevant people in the party to deal with, and Smeath went public on it."]
A blatent lie
They were perfecrly at liberty to take their specified accusations to the press and make them public they did not do so.
You said they did not go public out of loyalty to their party.
The report was leaked and got as far as The Jerusalem Post - no detail;s of the accusations of antisemitism have ever appeared in any publication anywhere - nowhere on this planet.
The only examples that have ever been given have been criticism of Israeli criminality.
No suggestion of significant antisemitism ever appeared until eight weeks after Labour declared itself in favour of boycotting Israel - not in the entire existence of the Labour Party.
These facts are enough to kick these ludicrous accusations out of court - certainly in Britain - maybe not in modern Israel.
You have no case, these accusations have no basis and unless they are properly presented with details and faces, they are exposed for what they are, part of the multi-million propaganda campaign to offset the boycott of Israeli goods.
The clumsy dishonest way in which you have attempted to use a lie invented by a foreign State to smear a British political party doesn't do you any favours either.
I see no point in discussing this subject with someone who does more damage to the evil cause he defends than any of us could possibly do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:43 PM

Great to have a decent chat, guys, once the axis are tucked up in their beds. Must hit the sack meself as it happens. Back to non-civilisation in the morning, I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:36 PM

Agreed, Steve. Especially "Race" in any sort of scientific sense is a dodgy concept in any case."

Bringing "race" into it just confuses the issue further.






















"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM

I quoted from one of YOUR posts professor, complete with quotation marks. If you cannot be bothered to read your OWN posts, let alone mine, why on earth do you think I should search back to find YOUR post.

Have fun ............ I certainly AM !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:37 PM

I suppose not, Greg, though we've recently focussed a fair bit on the racist/xenophobic aspect of the debate in the brexit fiasco, yet the objects of that prejudice are simply foreigners. "Racism" has become a blanket term for prejudice against or fearmongering directed at the distant "other," whether or not they are actually a different race to us. "Race" in any sort of scientific sense is a dodgy concept in any case. I think that attacking or castigating Jews because they are Jews is a sort of racism under the current usage of the term. It is never racist to attack or castigate the outrages of a regime. If you think that someone is attacking Israel because they are anti-Jew, then it's up to you to prove that, not just say it. It is entirely possible. But it's up to you to expose it and you need evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:52 PM

anti-Semitism as "a different argument" to other racism.

Jews are not a "race".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 PM

And I suppose that some twat with nothing better to do is going to bag 800.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:35 PM

For chrissake turn the bloody record over, Keith. And even I don't disrespect Ruth Smeeth by misspelling her name.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 02:21 PM

Rag,
Actually I am quoting one of your posts professor,

If true, let's all see it Rag.

Steve,
But you see, Keith, he doesn't think that. He's asking why people like you think that. So you are seriously misrepresenting him.

You forget that he recently described anti-Semitism as "a different argument" to other racism.

And you clearly do think that.

I clearly do not. You are misrepresenting me.

You're like a dog worth a bone when it comes to protecting Israel from any criticism

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with criticising Israel.
When I recognise lying propaganda about anything I will always challenge it.

Jim,
"They have been specified to the Labour leadership."
You have never provided a shred of proof of this -

Yes I have. The Labour Party has carried out two enquiries into it, over 50 members have been suspended for it, the entire NEC has declared themselves appalled by it, and numerous prominent people including Corby himself have referred to it, so there is ample proof of it and no question that it is real and you are a fool to deny it.

Are you still sticking to your "Jewish pact of silence story?"

I never had one Jim.

ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THAT THAT THE JEWISH LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ARE REFUSING TO DESCRIBE THE ANTISEMITISM OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE LABOUR PARTY?

I never have. They reported it to the relevant people in the party to deal with, and Smeath went public on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM

Dog WITH a bone. Although dog WORTH a bone does have a certain ring to it...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 10:58 AM

"They have been specified to the Labour leadership."
You have never provided a shred of proof of this - you invented a "Jewish cover-up" to explain it.
"You look a fool when you deny them."
Not as much as you look a fool when you accuse somebody of antisemitism and can't tell us what it is you are accusing them of.
How can you accuse somebody of something and not be able to tell us what you are accusing them of?
Bloody insane.
Are you still sticking to your "Jewish pact of silence story?"
You probably won't answer this - fine - I shall enjoy asking it over and ovr until you either answer it or go away.
One more time
ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING THAT THAT THE JEWISH LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ARE REFUSING TO DESCRIBE THE ANTISEMITISM OUT OF LOYALTY TO THE LABOUR PARTY?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:54 AM

As if I care what a bunch of Tories think.

"Rag,
why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

You are the only person I know who thinks it should be."

But you see, Keith, he doesn't think that. He's asking why people like you think that. So you are seriously misrepresenting him. You do it all the time. Dishonest, disreputable, disgusting.

And you clearly do think that. You're like a dog worth a bone when it comes to protecting Israel from any criticism (you deny all their outrages, every single one) and you want the wider definition of antisemitism. And don't say you don't, otherwise I'll have to remind everyone of those multiple posts of yours valiantly trying to espouse a long-defunct and discredited EU definition. You weren't like a dog with a bone protecting the Pakistanis in northern England against racist abuse, though, were you? In fact, you are seriously suspected of having joined in with it. Oh yes, antisemitism is your special case all right. Has been for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:46 AM

"Rag,why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism. You are the only person I know who thinks it should be"

Actually I am quoting one of your posts professor, do you not even bother to read them?

Presumably you agree with the post seeing as you posted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 09:08 AM

Steve, the report says That Chakrabarti was completely undermined.
That is as rubbished as it can be, apart from the acting chair saying it was not worth the paper it was printed on.

Rag,
why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

You are the only person I know who thinks it should be.

Jim,
You said it, and until that are, there is no case to answer because unspecified charges are unanswerable.

They have been specified to the Labour leadership.
They exist. They are real. You look a fool when you deny them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM

That is criticism, much of it unjustified, not "rubbishing." If the committee has proper evidence, not just Tory surmise, that there was anything shady about Chakrabarti's peerage, etc., they should piss or get off the pot. To accuse Labour of awful timing, which I agree with, is not the same as demonstrating improper behaviour, of which there was none.

I'll tell you why antisemitism is being made a "special case," Raggytash. It isn't because it's different from other instances of racism. It's because there's a deliberate effort to conflate true antisemitism, which, if it's to have any meaning, must adhere to its traditional definition, with criticism of the policies and actions of the Israeli regime. If the people who propagate this dishonest notion (Keith and bobad being archetypal examples here) succeed, they will have protected the regime from any criticism of its vile activities. That's the aim and that's why they want to make antisemitism a special case. If I were Jewish, that would make me very nervous. We see Keith doing that here all the time, in complete denial of all the outrages of the regime. The unintended consequences of that are that we would no longer have a useful definition of antisemitism (the EU was wise enough to ditch a dishonest wider definition despite pressure from various pro-Israel lobby groups) and that it puts Jews in the firing line by making them collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli regime. That's what unjustified conflations do for you. This is what Jim and I are referring to when we describe people such as Keith and bobad as the true antisemites. They have a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:40 AM

No-one has yet answered my question of why anti-Semitism should be dealt with separately from any other racism.

Come on professor you are making an issue of it so respond to this fundamental query.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:37 AM

"None were described"
You said it, and until that are, there is no case to answer because unspecified charges are unanswerable.
Thet is the point Kafka was making when he described the actions of an extremist State imposing its will on the people.
The only "antisemitism" Labour is guilty of is critiscising Israel - that is the "new racism" the report refers to.
"so you can hardly deny them "
Of course you can deny them if they are unspecified and unsubstantiated.
How can you possible charge anybody with anything without first reading out the charges?
Any criminal would get off scott free if the arresting officer didn't do that - any crime thriller fan knows that.
It is utterly stupid to suggest that you can convict somebody of something and not specify what.
You bloody well know this - that is why you invented your antisemitic 'Jewish pact of silence' to explain it away.
,font color=red>CONDEMNING ISRAEL FRO THE WAR CRIMES AND ATROCITIES THEY HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM STANDING TRIAL FOR BY U.S. VETOES IS NOT RACISM - IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ANTISEMITISM - THAT IS THE ONLY THING LABOUR ARE GUILTY OF AND I'M WITH THEM 100% ON THAT ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:17 AM

Steve,
The report did not "rubbish" the Chakrabarti report.

Yes it did.
" The Chakrabarti report makes recommendations about creating a more robust disciplinary process within the Labour Party, but it is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and antisemitism. The fact that the report describes occurrences of antisemitism merely as "unhappy incidents" also suggests that it fails to appreciate the full gravity of the comments that prompted the inquiry in the first place. These shortfalls, combined with Ms Chakrabarti's decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Leader of that Party, and her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, have thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent. 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. It is disappointing that she did not foresee that the timing of her elevation to the House of Lords, alongside a report absolving the Labour Leader of any responsibility for allegations of increased antisemitism within his Party, would completely undermine her efforts to address this issue. It is equally concerning that Mr Corbyn did not consider the damaging impression likely to be created by this sequence of events. (Paragraph 114)"

It did not specify the antisemitism accusations in any detail

Of course not. There were hundreds!

and did not accuse Labour of widespread or institutional antisemitism.

No-one has claimed that anyway.

Jim,
"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia "
None were described

NO, but we know that many accusations have been made, leading to two Labour and one Parliamentary enquiry and over 50 suspensions from the Party, so you can hardly deny them even if we do not have all the details ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 03:56 PM

Well, considering that Teribus and Keith have has an "authoritative" select committee report to bolster their prejudices, they haven't exactly had their best ever day, have they? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:40 PM

Can either of you explain why your world is one where it isn't necessary to read out the charges before convicting someone of something?
It sounds awfully like fascism to me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:16 PM

"Any and all types of anti-Semitism are covered."
So the LabourPary are accused of claiming Jews commit Usury and carry out blood sacrifice!!
Even more idiotic than your old usual.
"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, "
What unacceptable antisemitism?
Maybe Keith's Usury and blood sacrifice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:03 PM

not sure which "Shaw"

Considering The Colonel, its likely George Bernard.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM

Idiotic posts from both Teribus (not sure which "Shaw" it was supposed to be directed at, but it doesn't relate to me) and, naturally, from Keith. The report did not "rubbish" the Chakrabarti report. It did not specify the antisemitism accusations in any detail and did not accuse Labour of widespread or institutional antisemitism. I do not need to play your silly game of taking chunks of the report out of context. All your efforts so far have been extremely biased towards highlighting Labour's issues and have ignored the rest, which gives vital context. It's my view that the report was biased against Labour too (bearing in mind it was supposed to be about antisemitism in general) but it can't hold a candle to your strenuous and dishonest efforts. As I've already said, best to read the report end to end. Anyone who hasn't already done that will be amazed at the imbalance and bias shown by what Teribus and Keith are trying to perpetrate here.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:02 PM

Wouldn't this stuff make more sense in the other thread. It would save people writing, and reading, essentially the same posts in both.

And no, they shouldn't be merged, because there are a lot of other issues around the Labour Party that are being squeezed out,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:41 AM

"Accusations of unacceptable anti-Semitism, bullying, misogyny and homophobia "
None were described
""
No they're not - how can you "cover" something without describing it
How ca they have been "coveed" if, as you claim, the accusers refused to make them public
No details no crime
Common sense and natural justice
Jim Carroll