leicsmac Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: There is a slight difference between making an innocuous remark about an oppressive item of clothing and smearing parts of a community of first, being fanatics of a widely loathed foreign leader and second, being behind all the allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour party. As much as I think Labour needs to do some cleaning house, is it a certainty the remark was innocuous in its intent as well as its delivery? I'm really not sure, given the way it fired up both ends of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: As much as I think Labour needs to do some cleaning house, is it a certainty the remark was innocuous in its intent as well as its delivery? I'm really not sure, given the way it fired up both ends of the debate. It’s intent and delivery was solely purposed around raising his own profile, he doesn’t give a stuff if it’s offensive or not so long as it does what he intended. It was double layered for that reason. Was it racist? No I don’t think so. Without the two imagery snipes it was a brilliant article and let’s not forget it was supporting the right to wear a burka in public. Did it need the snipes? For the purposes of the article points no, for the purposes of BJ being centre of the media’s attention yes. He knew it was controversial, he knew it was close to the line, he knew exactly what he was doing and really he should be ashamed of that. I doubt he is though. So yeah I think innocuous is incorrect but I still don’t think it’s on the scale of the things we are seeing in the Labour Party currently. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 47 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: There is a slight difference between making an innocuous remark about an oppressive item of clothing and smearing parts of a community of first, being fanatics of a widely loathed foreign leader and second, being behind all the allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour party. I don’t think it’s a big intuitive leap to suggest that some right-wing Jewish groups are massively supportive of Trump, given that he has firmly come down on the side of Israel regarding the Palestine question. Truth isn’t a smear and neither is it anti-Semitic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 5 minutes ago, Buce said: I don’t think it’s a big intuitive leap to suggest that some right-wing Jewish groups are massively supportive of Trump, given that he has firmly come down on the side of Israel regarding the Palestine question. Truth isn’t a smear and neither is it anti-Semitic. If he had just said that I don't think it would be too much of a problem. I think issue was claiming the allegations of anti-semitism in Labour were made up by Jewish Trump supporters. That's certainly verging on anti-semitic - but it needs condemning more for its stupidity. Just as big a concern should be the election of people to the NEC who are proud supporters of the Iranian Islamic revolution, given this is supposed to be a political party that supports equal rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said: 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. Boris Johnsons remarks were stupid but there's a bit of a difference between that, for which he was roundly castigated, and muddying the waters between criticism of Israel (which is fair, and you'll find some of the biggest critics of Netanyahu are Jewish groups) and of Jews as a whole; giving plausible deniability to anti-semites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 47 minutes ago, Strokes said: It’s intent and delivery was solely purposed around raising his own profile, he doesn’t give a stuff if it’s offensive or not so long as it does what he intended. It was double layered for that reason. Was it racist? No I don’t think so. Without the two imagery snipes it was a brilliant article and let’s not forget it was supporting the right to wear a burka in public. Did it need the snipes? For the purposes of the article points no, for the purposes of BJ being centre of the media’s attention yes. He knew it was controversial, he knew it was close to the line, he knew exactly what he was doing and really he should be ashamed of that. I doubt he is though. So yeah I think innocuous is incorrect but I still don’t think it’s on the scale of the things we are seeing in the Labour Party currently. 3 Yeah, you'll get no disagreement with me on any of that, particularly the bolded part. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 5 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Boris Johnsons remarks were stupid but there's a bit of a difference between that, for which he was roundly castigated, and muddying the waters between criticism of Israel (which is fair, and you'll find some of the biggest critics of Netanyahu are Jewish groups) and of Jews as a whole; giving plausible deniability to anti-semites. I think the trouble with it as a whole, much like problem any of this sort in this age. Is the media latch onto a trend (Labour antisemetism in this case) and try and bend any story to fit the narrative. A philosophy of throw enough shit at the wall and something will stick, this now has the opposite effect. Because some claims are verging on the ridiculous and they can put together a claim of being the victim of a witch hunt by pointing out such absurdities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 Brexit has certainly exposed how poor many of the MPs are and how corrupt is a large section of the media. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 (edited) Well done Theresa. Edited 4 September 2018 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 7 minutes ago, MattP said: Well done Theresa. These things mean diddly squat outside an election cycle... And they don't mean much more during one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: These things mean diddly squat outside an election cycle... And they don't mean much more during one. There are some interesting bits... What are the public’s “Red Lines”? When asked whether certain terms would be acceptable as part of the final negotiated Brexit deal, a majority of those polled said they would not accept either a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic (57 percent unacceptable to 21 percent acceptable). or tariffs on UK businesses seeking access to the single market (55 percent unacceptable to 25 percent acceptable). Both of these potential terms provoked majority opposition across all party lines. Respondents also rejected the suggestion of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) having supremacy over the UK’s legal system by an overwhelming margin of 62 percent to 20 percent. The public had more mixed views on the issue of free movement, as 42 percent would find no further restrictions placed on the rights of EU citizens to live and work in the UK an acceptable part of a Brexit deal, while 37 percent would find it unacceptable. Notably, Conservative voters were the most vociferous in their opposition to the potential deal scenarios we mentioned in the poll. Four in five (78 percent) were opposed to a hard border on the island of Ireland, and the same proportion (78 percent) objected to ECJ supremacy over British courts. Sixty percent found the idea of tariffs on UK businesses unacceptable, and almost half (49 percent) insisted on greater restrictions on freedom of movement as part of any Brexit deal. A majority of Conservative voters (55%) believe that Brexit will be good for the UK economy, in stark contrast to Labour voters (20%) and Lib Dem voters (18%). The government really is in a no win situation over brexit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathrow fox Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 6 hours ago, The Doctor said: Top 9 - slate from a cult that seems to be happy to attack anyone who suggests maybe Labour has a few problems it needs to tackle (like being run by anti-semites). What the ****s happened to my party? Almost expecting that wazzock Galloway to rejoin any day. Galloway wouldn’t have too rejoin if there was any justice,he’d still be there.He is the main man in my humble opinion.Doubt many on here would agree though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 2 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said: Galloway wouldn’t have too rejoin if there was any justice,he’d still be there.He is the main man in my humble opinion.Doubt many on here would agree though. Having had the tosser as my MP while at university, I'd definitely not agree with that. I was around during the 2015 election when Nas Shah beat him (voted for her too). His vile strategy then - accusing her of being an islamophobe after she spoke out against arranged marriages in the Asian community, something she'd been a victim of, accusing her of being a liar when she talked about her own experience because his goons dug up a marriage certificate showing she was (iirc) 15 when she was married and she'd said she was 16, so clearly this 1 year discrepancy meant she was fibbing to defame the Asian community and it was actually a consensual marriage - showed him to be an odious toad to his very core. If he rejoins, I cancel my membership tbqh - I'm not sharing anything with that tosspot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said: Galloway wouldn’t have too rejoin if there was any justice,he’d still be there.He is the main man in my humble opinion.Doubt many on here would agree though. Why do you think he is the main man out of interest? Any justice he would still be there? You know he was expelled for encouraging the killing of British troops? Edited 4 September 2018 by MattP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Having had the tosser as my MP while at university, I'd definitely not agree with that. I was around during the 2015 election when Nas Shah beat him (voted for her too). His vile strategy then - accusing her of being an islamophobe after she spoke out against arranged marriages in the Asian community, something she'd been a victim of, accusing her of being a liar when she talked about her own experience because his goons dug up a marriage certificate showing she was (iirc) 15 when she was married and she'd said she was 16, so clearly this 1 year discrepancy meant she was fibbing to defame the Asian community and it was actually a consensual marriage - showed him to be an odious toad to his very core. If he rejoins, I cancel my membership tbqh - I'm not sharing anything with that tosspot. Jocks eh Edited 4 September 2018 by Strokes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: Jocks eh alright there Homer... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathrow fox Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 20 minutes ago, MattP said: Why do you think he is the main man out of interest? Any justice he would still be there? You know he was expelled for encouraging the killing of British troops? He actually urged British soldiers to disobey orders in an illegal war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 14 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said: He actually urged British soldiers to disobey orders in an illegal war. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/23/labour.georgegalloway The charges faced by Mr Galloway were that: · he incited Arabs to fight British troops · he incited British troops to defy orders · he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs, · he threatened to stand against Labour · he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston. Found guilty of everything but the Plymouth charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathrow fox Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 He was one of the leaders 5 minutes ago, MattP said: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/23/labour.georgegalloway The charges faced by Mr Galloway were that: · he incited Arabs to fight British troops · he incited British troops to defy orders · he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs, · he threatened to stand against Labour · he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston. Found guilty of everything but the Plymouth charge. He was one of the leaders of the anti war movement.The clues in the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 2 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said: He was one of the leaders He was one of the leaders of the anti war movement.The clues in the name. I'm struggling to see how that excuses the charges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathrow fox Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 Yes pointing out the fact that if you enter another country uninvited,they might shoot back.Seems like common bloody sense to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 29 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said: Yes pointing out the fact that if you enter another country uninvited,they might shoot back.Seems like common bloody sense to me. Are you for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathrow fox Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 24 minutes ago, Strokes said: Are you for real? Funnily enough shots were fired back.Young men were killed.All for an exercise to make mr Blair look good and make rich men even richer.You ain’t twigged yet are you for real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 September 2018 Share Posted 4 September 2018 1 minute ago, Heathrow fox said: Funnily enough shots were fired back.Young men were killed.All for an exercise to make mr Blair look good and make rich men even richer.You ain’t twigged yet are you for real Listen mate, you might think its funny that our friends and families were killed in iraq but i don't. Whether you agreed with the war or not, soldiers who are sworn to protect us, were ordered to go there. Encouraging maming and killing them is not clever. You absolute bellend! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts