BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

Can anybody come up with the numbers? Yes the NEC of the Labour Party, the problem in OULC was highlighted by Baroness Royall that called for a far wider investigation that was carried out by recently created Baroness Chakrabarti whose report recommended that a lid be put very firmly on the issue. In short Labour's NEC decided to bury the whole thing as effectively as they possibly could - shame about Baroness Royall's report being leaked into the public domain something the NEC never intended.

Doesn't matter a damn whether or not you, Steve Shaw, Raggy or Jim Carroll think - none of you are members of, or are privy to the policies and working of, Labours NEC. I will consider as being accurate whatever is stated by senior Labour figures and the NEC long before I will accept your collective suppositions and ill-informed theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM

I have not said there is no antisemitism in the Labour party. I am simply saying that if there is evidence of endemic antisemitism in the Labour party then where is it? Someone else's say so does not qualify as hard evidence to me.

Nor am I suggesting that anyone should take my opinion over anyone else's in this. Because without hard evidence, all any of us have are opinions and theories, no matter how well or ill informed.

DtG

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

Someone else's say so does not qualify as hard evidence to me.

If it is from senior insiders then it does qualify as hard evidence to me.
There have been no equivalent denials.
Presumably your case is that they might all be lying for some unknown reason. That is hardly a convincing case. There is no evidence for it at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:19 AM

That is indeed rather presumptuous. I do not believe they are lying when they say that they have serious concerns about antisemitism within the party. Just as any right minded individual should have concerns about any sort of racism anywhere. What I am saying is that unless some real evidence of endemic antisemitism within the Labour party is produced, this is all speculative.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:29 AM

No-one is suggesting "endemic anti-Semitism" Dave.
We are suggesting that indeed there are "serious concerns about antisemitism within the party."

So we agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM

"Why would Sadique Khan and Tom Watson lie about it?"
What are the reasons you have been given and are asking this question as if they haven't, not valid?
"Why would the NEC say they were appalled by it?"
See above answer - you have ben told over and over again why
"Why so many suspensions?"
See above answer - suspensions took place why accusations were investigated - they were and no problem was found
Ther reports are all linked to the B.D.S. campaign or the anti-Corbyn dispute.
Why are you maliciously asking questions that have all been answered?
So you can claim the 1000 maybe?
THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PROBLEM AND, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT IS IDENTIFIED AND QUANTIFIED, THERE NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LANCOUR PARTY - THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Of course there are "serious concerns about antisemitism within the party." There are serious concerns over lots of things in lots of organisations and so there should be. I have not though, as yet, witnessed anything to make me believe that those serious concerns are anything other than that. Serious concerns. They should be listened to, investigated and acted upon. As they have been.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:15 AM

They should be listened to, investigated and acted upon.

Yes Dave . We are in total agreement.

As they have been.

The Deputy Leader said they had been slow to act and there are still outstanding issues.

Jim,
Ther reports are all linked to the B.D.S. campaign or the anti-Corbyn dispute.

Any evidence for that amazing claim Jim? No.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR -

Senior members say there is and none deny it, so that is obvious bollocks Jim.

, THERE NEVER WILL BE A PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LANCOUR PARTY

Senior members say there is Jim, and none deny it. Sorry.

THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM

You are now into the realms of bizarre fantasy Jim dear. You are just incapable of rational thought on this. You have a serious problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:17 AM

Do we know what these outstanding issues are or are we just to speculate some more?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:19 AM

It is a total travesty of natural and legal justice to accuse and condemn an individual, let alone an entire party of something without being to identify or quantify what these charges are - it is lynch-mob behaviour and also reminiscent of the show trials carried out by Stalin in the Soviet Union - British justice at its most toxic, it would appear.
To repeat over and over again questions that have been responded to over and over again is filibustering.
Let those responsible for this behaviour make their charges fully or let them take their right-wing politicking elsewhere.
Using Mudcat as a political soapbox has no place on the decent debating forum that it is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM


Do we know what these outstanding issues are or are we just to speculate some more?

Yes we know Dave. It is clear from the context. Anti Semitism in the Party.

Jim, You have lapsed into total irrationality.
Leave it for a while, and come back to it later.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM

Total irrationality is making charges and being able to identify them
Fucking madness in any sane society
"Leave it for a while, and come back to it later."
Don't you just wish????
You leave it - you have totally failed to make your case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:23 AM

"You are now into the realms of bizarre fantasy Jim dear. You are just incapable of rational thought on this. You have a serious problem." - Keith A of Hertford

The on this in that second sentence is redundant. Without it what you say above is true and has been obvious for almost a decade now.

DtG nice try by slipping in that "endemic". Very pleased to see that Keith A spotted it and pulled you up on it. Go back and we find it was the "usual suspects" claiming and arguing that not only was there was no problem at all with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, they claimed it did not exist. Deputy Leader says there is and it does, the NEC says there is and it does, Baroness Royall says there is and it does and Baroness Chakrabarti says there is and it does. Now I will believe them and chose to ignore the rather poor arguments being put up by the likes of Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw, Raggytash and yourself.

The evidence is there the NEC have made extensive efforts to keep it all under wraps. Chakrabarti's recommendations have aided this endeavour and made sure that Labour will not and cannot investigate the matter again - begs the obvious question that rather torpedoes your argument - if they have nothing to hide why mount the cover-up?
Thank God for leaked reports eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Now Momentum may be about to split.
Whither Momentum?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Yes, my apologies. Endemic was my slant on it and I was drawing the conclusion that it was implied by the massive coverage it had received in the press. I shall not use it again. I do believe that you will find however that I have not claimed that it did not exist. In a group of over half a million people generating millions of words there will be some antisemitism, some racism, some bad and lots of good. Those speaking on behalf of the party have made it clear that the bad will not be tolerated.

I shall rephrase my question. Is the belief that antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than it is anywhere else? If so, what is the evidence for this?

On the subject of evidence, what is the evidence that "the NEC have made extensive efforts to keep it all under wraps". What is this "leaked report" and where is it from? Is this a substantiated fact and would it stand up in a court of law?

Genuine questions and I have no argument to torpedo. Just trying to find out what the fuss is all about by seeking opinion from multiple sources.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 10:24 AM

Is this a substantiated fact and would it stand up in a court of law?
Yes and yes.

It is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public.
The report on anti-Semitism in the Oxford University Labour Soc. was not to be published, but was leaked.

Is the belief that antisemitism is worse in the Labour party than it is anywhere else? If so, what is the evidence for this?

The evidence is the large number of suspensions, and statements by senior figures.
Also this from the NEC.
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue"
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:01 AM

"Yes and yes."
Utter nonsense
Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges han not been described
Of course you can't -this is spiteful politicking that has long been su7nk without trace.... "Without it what you say above is true and has been obvious for almost a decade now" fully supported with mindless invective.
No specified charges - no case, unless your idea of democracy and justice is drawn from Kafka
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

" is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public."
I'M SURE YOU DON'T MEAN THESE!!
" is known that there have been many suspensions from the party over this, but details have not been made public."
And provided no specified examples - even from the Jerusalem Post, which got a copy
More evidence of non-existent antisemitism (or maybe they are part of Keith's 'Jewish pact of silence'.
"The evidence is the large number of suspensions, and statements by senior figures."
No evidence - just reactions to accusations
You are now putting up thisngs for the second and thirsd time which have been over-ridden by the fact that no specified charges have ever been made
I ask again
Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges han not been described?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence? I think not. There are numerous reasons that a paper is not published, including the simplest one - That it may contain inaccuracies. I am not saying this is the case but is there any evidence that there was a cover up? Do we know who leaked the report and why? If the suspensions were so secret, how do we know how many there were and in how many cases accusations were upheld?

No, sorry. Far too many holes in this 'evidence' for my liking. The balance of probabilities is still that the Labour party is no better or worse than any other large organisation.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

the fact that no specified charges have ever been made

The charges have been made. They have been made to the leadership and the NEC who have chosen to deal with them internally.
"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse."
Note Jim, cases not accusations.

Dave, I do not mind responding to all the probing questions you ask about everything Teribus and I post, but I have to ask, is there nothing in the posts of Jim or Steve that ever excite your sceptical curiosity?
What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

Or Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"

In short, why is your probing so unidirectional?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM

Dave,
So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence?

No Dave. The Party commissioned an enquiry into anti-Semitism in that society, but refused to publish the report.

Do we know who leaked the report and why

Yes.

If the suspensions were so secret, how do we know how many there were and in how many cases accusations were upheld?

Not "so secret." They just decided to deal with it internally, but the Telegraph got some details.

Now, what evidence will you be asking from Jim and Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/labour-has-secretly-suspended-50-members-for-anti-semitic-and-ra/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM

Unless you can specify those charges there is no Anti Semitism
Your Repetitive attempts to implicate the Labour party in something you aree totally unable to describe aaor explain without implicating the Jws in an antisemitic claim of a plot has now reached "Alice Through the Looking-Glass proportions
You refusal to respond to this question - "Can you produce one case in modern history where an accused is found guilty without the charges being described?" are proof positive that you are fully aware of this and are lying in your teeth, and our gleeful attempts yo blow up yet another Labour problem and you makes obvious exactly where you are coming from.
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government"
THat was not my claim - you are lying again - is there really no depths you will sink to to save face?
It is the implication of your claim that Jewish Parliamentarians refuse to describe the Antisemitism they claim - which now includes The Jewish Post.
The accusations have ben made quite clear - they are entirely based on Corbyn's support of B.D.S. - which may be antisemitic to Israel and her supporters but is antisemitic by definition to describe it as such.
You are as mad as a hatter
Jim Carroll

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

You are one of the most evilly dishonest people on this forum Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 01:46 PM

Unless you can specify those charges there is no Anti Semitism

You are one of the most evilly dishonest people on this forum Keith

Ah, ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM

My statement about Quisling
06 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM
"You are a persistent quisling Keith - betraying the elected members of a British Party with a century old reputation for anti-racism of any form to an extremist right wing foreign power."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:06 PM

"So a University Labour group produced a paper that was not published and that is damning evidence? I think not." - DtG

And you would think right Gnome.

A University Labour Group DID NOT produce a paper. Baroness Royall at the behest of Labour's National Executive Committee undertook an investigation of reported anti-Semitism within the Oxford University Labour Club after its Jewish co-chair resigned and other Jewish members stated that they felt unsafe attending meetings. On completion of Baroness Royall's investigation here conclusions and her recommendations were published by the NEC but they tried to suppress the main body of the report which was subsequently leaked. While Baroness Royall stated that anti-Semitism was not institutionalised she said that it did exist and required urgent and immediate action to counter the spread of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. Baroness Royall's findings prompted the investigation by Shami Chakrabarti which had a far wider remit.

Your post makes one wonder if you have the foggiest clue about anything being discussed here - not the first time you have argued from a position of total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM

Sorry Teribus. Have I said something that offends you that warrants such rancour? If so, please let me know what it is so I can avoid it in future.

I am not arguing anything, merely questioning what was said. IE "The report on anti-Semitism in the Oxford University Labour Soc. was not to be published, but was leaked." That is all I knew about it so, yes, in one way you are right. I was ignorant, in the true sense of the word, of the events being discussed. You have now enlightened me further and I now know that the report was not by the society but about the society. But that poses a further question.

Are we now saying that a report into a top University's Labour society, that was never published but was leaked to the right wing press is indicative of serious antisemitism in the Labour party? Do you believe that antisemitism is more prevalent within the Labour party than in any other organisation? If so, what brings you to that conclusion and what makes you believe that Labour supporters are more likely to be antisemitic than any other cross section of society?

The only argument I have ever put forward is that I believe that the Labour party is not likely be any different to any other large group. That is not arguing form ignorance but from a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life. I believe, and I accept that this is purely anecdotal, that in the main people are good regardless of their political beliefs, race, colour or creed. But there is good and bad everywhere, including the Labour party. How can it be any worse with them than say, the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP or any other party (Excluding extremists of any persuasion of course)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:55 PM

Been away most of today. Reading the most recent bunch of posts in this thread, the most obvious conclusion, sorry to say, is that Keith is a sad obsessive. As he is not a well man, I sometimes feel that I should hold back. But that would be highly inappropriate. Keith's modus operandi is very, very simple. He gets an idea in his head, typically predicated on bigotry. He then dedicates his online life to ignoring any evidence adverse to his agenda whilst appealing to any right-wing authority he can find. This excuses him from having any properly formed opinion of his own. Keith never admits error, never. For example, he stated in a post that, according to Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor were "vulgar" whereas Wheatcroft actually said no such thing. Though Keith was clearly bang to rights, he refused to acknowledge the error (I won't go into all the excuses he gave as I haven't got all day). Also, when it comes to Israel, Keith denies every single atrocity committed by successive regimes, claiming that he's "only putting Israel's side of the story." Oh yes, Keith is very good at telling stories!

Just a few observations, that's all...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:18 AM

"For example, he stated in a post that, according to Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor were "vulgar" whereas Wheatcroft actually said no such thing."

Good heavens Shaw, still banging on about this two years down the line eh? You must be really short of ammunition. But I'd challenge your NO SUCH THING. Wheatcroft described the historical works related to the First World War of the authors you mentioned as being "Fraudulent" related to Clark's work and "Vulgar" related to A.J.P.Taylor's work. So Keith A was at least 50% right wasn't he.

Here are Geoffrey Wheatcroft's actual words:

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark." - Geoffrey Wheatcroft; Guardian; 9.12.1914; Article Title - The Second World War - The Long Read - "The myth of the good war"

Now Keith A of Hertford quoted the above passage, if fact IIRC he also provided a link to it, but in one post he omitted the word "Fraudulent" and Stevie boy jumped all over him for it (And as his last post shows he continues to do so after two years - and Shaw has the effin' nerve to accuse Keith A of being obsessive!!!). In Keith A's following posts on that particular thread Keith A owns up to his error of omission, obviously missed, or more likely deliberately ignored by Shaw. On the subject of errors Shaw does not seem moved to obsessively point out the glaring mistakes and errors made by his pals, Keith A had a word describing such behaviour - unidirectional.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:04 AM

As disingenuous as ever DtG.

Dave the Gnome - 08 Dec 16 - 05:02 PM

1: What rancour? I pointed out that you appeared to be ignorant {In the true sense of the word} of the details of the subject under discussion and you agreed that I was in fact right:

"That is all I knew about it so, yes, in one way you are right. I was ignorant, in the true sense of the word, of the events being discussed."

2: "Are we now saying that a report into a top University's Labour society, that was never published but was leaked to the right wing press is indicative of serious anti-Semitism in the Labour party?

I don't know about "WE" DtG but that is certainly what Baroness Royall and Labour's National Executive Committee thought.

I'll take the following points 3, 4 & 5 together

3: "Do you believe that anti-Semitism is more prevalent within the Labour party than in any other organisation? If so, what brings you to that conclusion and what makes you believe that Labour supporters are more likely to be anti-Semitic than any other cross section of society?"

4: The only argument I have ever put forward is (Strange thing to say considering the first five words of your second paragraph - "I am not arguing anything") that I believe that the Labour party is not likely be any different to any other large group. That is not arguing form ignorance but from a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life."

5: "How can it be any worse with them than say, the Conservatives, Liberals, UKIP or any other party (Excluding extremists of any persuasion of course)"

Decide for yourself the following evidence:

(a) How many other people who are members of any political party have publicly resigned because they feel intimidated attending meetings of their own political party? Documented cases of this from members of the Labour Party.

(b) How many constituency party organisations have been suspended and prohibited from holding meetings by the governing bodies of those political parties? Documented cases of Labour's NEC doing exactly this, most notable being the Wallasey Constituency Labour Party where on mounting her Leadership challenge to Jeremy Corbin Wallasey Labour MP Angela Eagle was threatened, intimidated and subjected to homophobic abuse by Corbyn supporters. Four other Constituency Labour Party organisations have also been suspended.

(c) Baroness Royall was tasked with looking into anti-Semitism (Racism by Labour's definition) within the Oxford University Labour Club. Her findings resulted in 11 recommendations some of whom she detailed as requiring urgent and immediate action - what other political party has had to do the same? Baroness Royall's report was taken so seriously by Labour's NEC that a second investigation was commissioned to look into allegations of misogyny, intimidation, racism and homophobia throughout the entire Party structure - what other political party has found the need to do that? Those actions were not taken because there was no evidence of those charges to be found - you do not attempt to suppress a report that exonerates your organisation, I would rather have thought that you'd trumpet it to the world - Labour's NEC didn't do that - WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:58 AM

Steve, Your 8.55PM post is pure and baseless personal attack and no discussion.

Dave, I do not mind responding to all the probing questions you ask about everything Teribus and I post, but I have to ask, is there nothing in the posts of Jim or Steve that ever excite your sceptical curiosity?
What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

Or Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"
Or his claim that Shah had not been anti-Semitic but lied that she had for career purposes.

Do such claims from them not require evidence too?
We have supplied all the evidence you requested, what about them?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:17 AM

I must have misinterpreted your post as being rancourous then, Teribus. If you say it was not, I will accept that and put it down to my misunderstanding. Nothing disingenuous at all.

Addressing your points of evidence a, b and c.

a) What has this to do with antisemitism?
b) Ditto
c) Labour did not 'have' to undertake the investigations. They did so voluntarily. They have since undertaken a programme of improvement. Will the other parties do the same? I am reminded of the old joke about an ex inmate of a lunatic asylum being abused for having undertaken treatment. His response is to remind the abusers that he now has a paper to prove that he is sane whereas they have no such thing :-)

In conclusion, no, I do not believe that the Labour party is any better or worse than any other (previous exclusion apply). They have simply been more open.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:24 AM

Keith, sorry, I am not ignoring you. I thought I had addressed this question before and I was trying to find a way of answering again without repeating myself. I can't so I will just say that I do indeed find nothing in Jim or Steve's posts that "excites my sceptical curiosity". I am not saying that I either agree or disagree with their statements. In truth it is a some of each. Now, if you like, you can take it as a compliment to your journalistic ability to engender further thought or I can just confirm what I have said before. I need to ask you a lot of questions because a lot of the time your points are unclear to me.

Hope this helps

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM

"Good heavens Shaw, still banging on about this two years down the line eh? You must be really short of ammunition. "
This is exactly what you do on this forum Teribus - you are still fighting world war one from two years back, still telling us that the result of the Irish Famine had nothing to do with British policy from about four years ago and still claiming that the ammunition sold to Syria was the wrong size to be used by Assad's snipers....... all to recoup long lost arguments and prove those who argue with you are stupid liars and purveyors of "made-up shit"
And you are still talking down to people from your superior position as a mental midget.
It happens every time a thread grinds to a stalemate - you and your mates go at your opponents like a pack of rats at the throat - Keith has just had another try at smearing my with his own antisemitism, as he has done at least once before.
Let's move back to the subject and leave Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor to the clay of history.
I don't agree that the Labour Party report was indicative of serious antisemitism in the Labour party - if it had been we would have been told of what that antisemitism was in great detail - by the victims of that antisemitism, by the Israeli press who were out to get Corbyn for his support of B.D.S. (especially as these accusations have their roots in Israel and are even accepted by the Israeli press as being about criticism of Israeli policy) - and most of all, by the right-wing press, which has been the sworn enemy of Corbyn from day one.
Other than one member's possible lapse of judgement, no description of the offence Labour has been accused of has been forthcoming - that is how serious these charges are.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, by definition, as much as the Israeli regime might like it to be.
B.D.S. is not antisemitic either - as far as I am concerned, it is on par with the South African boycott that helped to bring the Apartheid regime to its knees - mor power to it's elbow, as far as I am concerned - I'll donate to it and listen to what it has to say, and take part in its demonstrations, given the opportunity.
Of course there is antisemitism in the Labour Party - and every of the political party -
Labour has a long history of opposing it and the Left movement in Britain was built with the assistance of emigré Jews fleeing the European pogroms.
If the three people here still claim there to be a serious problem with Labour, they need to produce the facts of it in detail and not a string of accusations from people like Tom Watson, Vice Chairman of Labour's Friends of Israel and a vociferous opponent of B.D.S. and the right wing opponents of Corbyn.
What form does this antisemitism take and how many are involved? -
That is the only way we can possibly make a judgement on whether there is a serious problem - accusations from tainted claimants don't hack it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM

"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?
Will you please stop repeating this lie Keith
I have not made any such claim - support for the Israeli regime has always been present - they have nort infiltrated the Labour Party - it has always been there and since Corbyn became leader the Israeli's have called on their support to oppose B.D.S.
My use of teh term 'Quisling' was aimed at you, who have supported attacks on democratically elected labour politicians.
Don't you dare involve me in your antisemitic smears of Jewish labour politicians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM

Well of course I was using Keith's Wheatcroft fiasco as a typical example of how he blunders then refuses to retract, not wishing to reopen the whole thing. The whole thing is there in a thread, chapter and verse, for anyone who'd like to put themselves through torture for half an hour. There's more evidence in his posting since my last post of his sadly obsessive behaviour. Fifty percent right means fifty percent wrong. Glad you admitted that on Keith's behalf. Keith never did. As I've said here many times, the unspoken protocol here when you admit to making a mistake, as we all do occasionally, is that the rest of us then let it drop. Someone who can't hold their hands up when they blunder is not to be trusted. As for my post containing no discussion, Keith, your posts are not part of any discussion because you don't listen to other people, you adhere obsessively to a predigested point of view, you are in denial all the time and you constantly try to set traps and refuse to let dead horses lie in peace. You are an impediment to discussion. The sooner the rest of us realise that you are just a slightly wacky, shallow, sidelined also-ran and refuse to engage in your pathetic trickery the better. We're fools to ourselves when we engage you and we are giving you a totally false sense of your own importance. And it's not as if the whole world is listening, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM

Hope you realise I wasn't criticising you Steve - we've all been victims of falling down Keith's rabbit-holes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:33 AM

Jim,
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?
Will you please stop repeating this lie Keith

It is not a lie Jim.
You,08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM
" THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER (Israel) INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS (Labour Party)FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM"

Dave finds that so believable that he requires no evidence to justify it.
I think it is ludicrous.

Dave, Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
No-one within Labour has denied that, while numerous senior people have attested to that fact including the entire NEC and, separately, the Deputy Leader and the Mayor of London.

If you refuse to believe them how can we hope to convince you?
You have closed your mind.

And yet you believe without question Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

And Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"
And his claim that Shah had not been anti-Semitic but lied that she had for career purposes.

Your mind is closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:39 AM

Meanwhile, Labour have gone from second to fourth place at Sleaford.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:50 AM

" THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER (Israel) INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS (Labour Party)FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM"
That was a reference to your support Keith and it was directly targeted at you, Bobad and Teribus.
Labour politicians believe what they believe - they have not "infiltrated" the Labour Party, as you suggest I said - they are part of the left-right makeup of the party and are entitled to their views.
None of them are "secretly loyalW to israel - you have made that up - how could the vice craiman of Labour's friends of Israel be "secretly loyal" to Israel - feckin' lying idiot!
And you call me a liar!!!!
You, on the other hand, or not a member of the labour party and have used a bunch of accusations and presented them as facts to undermine democratically elected politicians to prove that the Labour Party is antisemitic - without evidence.
I have no doubt that some Jewish members of the Labour Party do genuinely regard criticism of Israel as antisemitism and I have no doubt that this is the type of "antisemitism" Labour is being accused of - if it is, we need to know.
Do not call me a liar again - I don't tell lies, unlike...... well, every dog recognises its own shit.
"And Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?""
You have been given over a dozen examples of how the Israeli Lobby works - internationally - you dismissed it as "propaganda" even though it was based on iron clad research
You are now behaving like the trapped rat that you are and going for every throat within reach
Stop it now!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:57 AM

Any problem with antisemitism is serious by definition. My mind is far from closed on the subject but I have yet to be convinced that the level of antisemitism in the Labour party is any higher than in any other large organisation. The simple fact that they have admitted that there is a problem, of any level, means that they have gone further towards addressing the issue that any of the other political parties.

Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others? Or that things are not as black and white as many posters on here seem to state? No need to respond, just have a think about it.

As to what I believe and what I do not believe. How do you know? There are many things that I believe and still question to gain a better understanding and there are many things that I do not believe that I do not feel the need to question at all. You can no idea what they are and, unless I tell you, never will. Feel free to PM.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 07:43 AM

"Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others?"
Can't speak for others Dave - I think I said that at the very beginning.
I agree entirely with your summing up.
It is noteworthy that last April the Conservatives were accused of Islamophobia by leading Muslims in Britain and members of their own party.
They have done precisely nothing to deal with the charge.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 08:44 AM

My, my, so Mr. Corbyn who was too busy to visit Israel's Holocaust memorial, has found the time to hang out with Khomeinists, Press TV and Israel-hating extremists this week.

UK Labour Leader Corbyn Attends London Launch of Anti-Israel Book Authored by 'Students for Justice in Palestine' Founder

"The fact that Britain's opposition leader took the time to attend Bazian's event and show solidarity with one of the most notorious fathers of anti-Israel agitation in academia indicates that Bazian's influence is increasing,"

The meeting should "alarm" Britain's Jewish community, Canary Mission said, as Corbyn is showing "open support for the demagogic founder of SJP, who once called for an intifada in the US and created the most influential student vehicle for the delegitimization of the Jewish people's history and very identity."

The Algemeiner

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Here's why Keith can't be trusted.

"In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East."

It was a post that she shared but which was not "one of her statements." In fact, the poster with Israel shown plonked in the middle of the US was concocted by Norman Finkelstein. The comments on the poster are his, including the one that Keith is ascribing to Naz Shah. . By the way, Finkelstein is a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors, both victims of the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps. So she condoned it but did not suggest it and it did not originate with her.   Next, the wording did not refer to "Israeli Jews." The poster said "Relocate Israel into the United States." Nowhere on the poster is the word "Jews" used, though "Jewish state" is referred to. As I've said many times, Israel, though it likes to refer to itself as "the Jewish state," is actually under three-quarters Jewish. "Israeli Jews transported away from the Middle East" is a direct lift by Keith from Guido Fawkes' reinterpretation of the statement on his blog, with Keith's addition of the word "Jews," and is a pretty poor and tendentious mischaracterisation of the original. I assume that any relocation of "Israel" unqualified would include all its citizens - unless otherwise stated, which it wasn't.   

It is absolutely typical of Keith, a major element of his modus operandi in fact, to make these sly little changes in quotes and passages. The changes are always, without fail, attempts to shift the agenda in his favour. You may think that the above tinkerings I've highlighted are pretty insignificant - except that they are not, are they? They represent an underhand kind of spin and they tend to accumulate unless they are constantly questioned. Well I don't want to spend half my time here being on the lookout for this kind of devious and dishonest behaviour. It sours the whole forum and wasting time on it is very polarising. You can rattle on all you like about insults, sweariness, name-calling, etc., but this despicable and disreputable behaviour is at the root of much, if not all, of that.

As for Naz reposting the poster, which clearly meant that she agreed with it, does that make her antisemitic? No it does not. It makes her very foolish and insensitive and I don't like the poster and I wish she hadn't done what she did. But she wasn't antisemitic in doing so for the following reasons. First, the poster was drawn up by a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors and whose extensive scholarship on Middle East politics can't be denied, whatever you think of him. I fully expect someone or other to pop up and claim that he's a self-hating Jew, though I'd point out that he's a fierce defender of tbe state of Israel. Second, the poster is clearly a reaction to the policies of the Israeli regime, not an attack on the characteristics of Jewish people. I regard it as ill-conceived and put out there with no regard for outcomes. But it falls at the first hurdle when it comes to antisemitism. Woolly definitions that are intended to prevent criticism of Israel are worse than useless and will do nothing to further the fight against antisemitism.

Finally, remarks emanating from Naz Shah and the Labour NEC after the event were attempts to close the issue and move on. Arguing that she said she was antisemitic so it must be true are perfectly ridiculous if you also accept that she was an utterly stupid bugger to endorse the poster in the first place. It's quite clear that the retraction and apologies were efforts to save her own arse and move on. Typical politician. So stop pretending that she suddenly had a saintly moment once confronted with her idiocy, eh?

I have yet to see a single quote from any Labour Party member that is antisemitic. If you have any, bring them on. But make it chapter and verse or just don't bother. Don't behave like Keith because we'll chuck it straight back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Did someone suggest, quite rightly that I used the term 'endemic' with reference to antisemitism in the Labour party where no one else had suggested that? I wonder where I got the idea from? Maybe some of the wording in the anti Corbyn press? From the link bobad provided...

Most recently, Corbyn has come under fire for his failure to properly address rampant Jew-hatred and antisemitic anti-Zionism within his own party.

I would hate to get hung up on semantics but are endemic and rampant not synonymous in this context? I have apologised for using the term and said I will not use it again. But maybe now people can understand my mistake.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:46 AM

the anti Corbyn press

So I guess that any press that reports on Labour's anti-Semitism is "anti Corbyn" press by definition, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

"Addressing your points of evidence a, b and c.

a) What has this to do with antisemitism?
b) Ditto
c) Labour did not 'have' to undertake the investigations. They did so voluntarily. They have since undertaken a programme of improvement. Will the other parties do the same?

With regard to (a) How many other people who are members of any political party have publicly resigned because they feel intimidated attending meetings of their own political party? Documented cases of this from members of the Labour Party.

Those documented cases were Jewish students at Oxford who were intimidated and made to feel unsafe at meetings of the OULC. That is what (a) had to do with anti-Semitism.

With regard to (b) How many constituency party organisations have been suspended and prohibited from holding meetings by the governing bodies of those political parties? As much connected with (c) as with (a) This had to do with intimidation, misogyny, racism and homophobia uncovered by Shami Chakrabarti's Party wide investigation which was commissioned because of what Baroness Royall's Inquiry discovered. That was the link between (b) and anti-Semitism

With regard to (c) Baroness Royall was tasked with looking into anti-Semitism (Racism by Labour's definition) within the Oxford University Labour Club. Her findings resulted in 11 recommendations some of whom she detailed as requiring urgent and immediate action - what other political party has had to do the same? Baroness Royall's report was taken so seriously by Labour's NEC that a second investigation was commissioned to look into allegations of misogyny, intimidation, racism and homophobia throughout the entire Party structure - what other political party has found the need to do that? Those actions were not taken because there was no evidence of those charges to be found - you do not attempt to suppress a report that exonerates your organisation, I would rather have thought that you'd trumpet it to the world - Labour's NEC didn't do that - WHY?

Labour's NEC commissioned Baroness Royall's Inquiry because Oxford University was going to carry out their own Inquiry and it looked as though the House of Commons was about to do the same. Labour's NEC wisely took the tack that if they got the ball rolling on their own they would have a better chance of controlling whatever the Inquiry turned up - which is what they attempted to do with Baroness Royall's report.

What evidence do YOU have that other political parties need to conduct such inquiries?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

"My, my, so Mr. Corbyn who was too busy to visit Israel's Holocaust memorial, "
This uncreited information came from
CANARY MISSION
Little wonder that Bobad failed to identify it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:01 AM

"What evidence do YOU have that other political parties need to conduct such inquiries?"
If a major party is publicly accused of racism or bigotry by a community leader it is not only beholden on that party to either disprove that accusation or carry out an enquiry - that responsibility is magnified 100 times if the party in question is the one governing Britain.
It is in their own interests to do so - unless the accusations are grounded in fact, of course.
Jim Carroll