Fox Ulike

What's interesting is the almost total lack of effect the whole anti-Semitism thing seems to be having on voting intentions. Restores my faith in the British electorate somewhat, and shows the severe limitations of propaganda in a free society. For propaganda to work effectively you really need to be able to crush all dissent to it too. That's just impossible in the Social Media age. However the worry remains that Corbyn constantly gains unearned power from these increasingly desperate and failing attacks on him. His approach to Israel is clearly questionable, but no-one is questioning it. How could a man who has so clearly planted his flag on the Palestinian side of the dispute become a PM who both sides would look at as an impartial mediator who could help to bring peace? Would Corbyn call for sanctions against Israel if he were PM? Seems unthinkable.

Yeah course they will. I'm happy that Labour has adopted this as I think the definition is fair: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Boris is lucky that the Conservative Party don't adopt the same standard for all racial and religious groups. For example: “Islamophobia is a certain perception of Muslims, which may be expressed as hatred toward Muslims. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Islamophobia are directed toward Muslim or non-Muslim individuals and/or their property, toward Muslim community institutions and religious facilities.” "I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes." Would you say that counts as "rhetorical manifestation directed at Muslim individuals...". Applying your own standards evenly, would you then chuck Boris out of the Party - plus everyone who supported him over that comment? Interesting.

As above. He's not said that. There's a huge difference between forming your opinion on what has actually happened or been said, or forming your opinion based on how those events or words have been reported. You're just letting yourself be led by the nose on all this. As for innocuousness. Who decides that? Look at it this way. If John McDonnell had said that Jewish men who wear the Kipa look 'ridiculous', do you think that would be reported as an innocuous comment? And if Johnson had said that "Some people in the Muslim community are Corbyn fanatics" - would it have even made the newspapers? It's about moral eviqualence, and applying your own principles equally across the political spectrum. Too many people are too happy to blandly be told what to think if it fits with their existing political prejudices.

But he's not criticised "Jews as a whole". Did you actually listen to the recording of what he's said? This is the whole problem. You're not commenting on what he actually said; you're commenting on what he was reported to have said. You're letting the media tell you what to think.

It’s not really about the incidents it’s more about the way that they are being reported by the media. Boris can say that Muslim women look ridiculous and like letterboxes and doesn’t feel like he should apologise. Can you imagine the media reaction if John McDonnell said that Jewish men look ‘ridiculous’ for wearing the kipa? John Willsman said that “Some of the people [criticising Corbyn] in Jewish communities are Trump fanatics”. It’s not a clever thing to say, but it’s not racist. Same as Boris’ comments. In fact, is it inverted racism if you’re offended by this comment, on behalf of the “Jewish communities?”. Perhaps some Jewish communities are politically motivated, and are manipulating the situation for their own ends. Bear in mind that lots of Jewish organisations are suddenly finding that they are being given a voice over all this. Why wouldn’t they take advantage of the situation? What is wrong in calling this out? Are Jewish communities beyond criticism? I’m not saying I agree with Willsman (and I’m not interested in a debate on it), but it should be a legitimate viewpoint in a society that believes in free speech and not chained to a warped idea of political correctness.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 50/100 My Time 111 seconds  

To be fair to @Markyblue, at least he had the decency to respond. It's a shame that the posters on here telling us to "Get over it" don't have the balls to face up to someone who has actually been affected by Brexit.

Me neither. My "near treasonous" activities so far include: Asking how UK will access the Single Market post-Brexit Questioning the veracity of the "£350m to the NHS" claim Tutting when I saw the reduced Euro exchange rate when I went on holiday. I'm single-handedly negating the benefits of Brexit.

"The benefits of leaving have been negated". Your words, mate. Your words.

Wot about the Centrists? Why don't we get a balloon? So unfair.

But people don’t feel that they were duped or naïve. They voted so that EU nationals wouldn’t be able to get on a plane, arrive here and set up home without any questions being asked. People believe that this is now going to happen and so Leavers are going to get what they voted for. So no-one feels duped. Whether this will actually have an impact on immigration is debatable. But because people who voted Leave were (statistically) less educated, it’s clear that a lot of them haven’t thought any further than “Winning Brexit.” Brexit = less foreigners. End of story. “We won!”. I do understand where you’re coming from though. Because for the last two years very few people have actually been prepared to admit why they voted – possibly for fear of being branded racist. Personally I think this is unfair as it is legitimate to want to restrict the number of people who can just turn up in your country. But I digress. Brexit has been twisted into an argument about the Customs Union. Something which only 6% of Leavers (and therefore only 3% of the electorate) regarded as the key issue. I think this is where the problem with Brexit comes in. We’re leaving the Single Market even though only 3% of the electorate regarded this as the key reason for Brexit.

This is interesting in seeing why people voted the way they did: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ 33% of Leave voters said their main reason for voting leave was immigration, but only 6% did so because of trade and the economy. My point is that nowadays you'd think that almost everybody voted Leave to get us out of the Customs Union - which is clearly untrue!

But you've got to remember the huge impact immigration had on people's decision to vote Leave. It was never really about the economy or money (although admittedly it was spun as such). Taking back control just meant taking back control of our borders. People voted to Leave the EU because there's a perception that the UK was overloaded with EU nationals. Since the vote this seems to have been quietly forgotten.

Wot? How will Brexit be the same as your wife?

It was two years ago. When are you going to stop celebrating?

Clear evidence of Corbyn's racist anti-Afrikaners agenda.

To be fair to the Brexiteers, none of them voted for a situation like this. Brexit was a bad idea but there is/was no reason that it should turn into the utter disaster that it is threatening to become. Most of the current problems can be laid squarely at the door of the current Government. It was Theresa May who set the tone for the negotiations with her meaningless rhetoric: "Brexit means Brexit" "A red, white and blue Brexit". "No deal is better than a bad deal". It didn't need to be like this. And, it was May's decision to trigger Article 50 with the UK wholly unprepared for the negotiations that lay ahead. This appears to be political ineptitude of the highest magnitude. I can only hope that I'm wrong, and that May is simply engaging in some sort of brinkmanship, in which she will bring the whole of British export business to the point of absolute panic, before seeming to sweep in to save the day, and paint herself as the hero who saved Britain. Either way, it's utterly shameless from a Prime Minister who was elected to serve all UK citizens, rather than her own political well-being.

Trump or Clinton is/was not in trouble because they had extra-marital affairs. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice whilst in office. Not for getting a gob job, but because he lied about it. Trump is in trouble for not disclosing the hush money about his alleged affair that may have influenced the way people voted. This is a crime. Open and shut case really. It starts to make sense as to why he wouldn’t disclose his Tax Returns either. If I were Trump though I’d argue that the 2016 victory would have been even more huge if the electorate known that he had banged a famous porn star.

No that's not a crime. Not reporting the hush money payment to the Federal Election Commission is a crime apparently. I doubt though that it's worthy of an impeachment.

Jesus wept. It makes the debates on here look erudite in comparison. That's just seven minutes of whining bullshit from people who just haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Not entirely sure what your point is in posting it?

You’re right but you have to take Matt’s posts with a large pinch of right-wing propogandist Salt! Corbyn has clearly taken a page out of the Trump playbook, and there are definitely emerging similarities between the Trump and Corbyn support bases. In both cases, it is largely opposition media which has created the environment that has allowed both men to develop a groundswell of fiercely loyal supporters. The reason for this is simple. No-one likes being told what to think.

My guess is that it was the Liberal Establishment. I wouldn't be surprised if they are attempting to sabotage the will of the British people. Should we crush them? Actually I'm not sure this article has too much to do with Brexit itself. It's about the unpreparedness of the NHS because, like the rest of us, they don't know what will happen to the pharmaceutical supply chain from the EU when we leave.

I think this is mostly caused by the vagueness of the Government’s position, rather than Brexit itself.

So that's literally no-one on here then. If you want to respond to something that's been said on Twitter then your best bet is to do so by using Twitter.

I always explicitly say both: "Would you like a Skon stroke Skone?" That way I ensure I don't offend anybody.