"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100
They'd need numbers (enough to become HM's Opposition overnight), money and a leader. Not impossible, but certainly difficult.
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.
It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
Again I agree. It is all very uncertain for labour though
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.
It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
Liz Kendall got the support of under 5% of the 2015 membership. A Blairite candidate would barely trouble the scorers these days.
My hope is that the next leader will be a unifying figure from the soft left with charisma, dynamism and a plan for government.
Isn't the trouble not that such a figure isn't what the doctor ordered, but they don't appear to be waiting the wings, unless they're still unknown? Dan Jarvis seemed to be touted as that a couple of years ago, but tbh I still don't know what his plan fior govenment might be and I'm reasonably interested in politics (& of course he's going off a-mayoring anyway).
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100
They'd need numbers (enough to become HM's Opposition overnight), money and a leader. Not impossible, but certainly difficult.
You last sentence sums up the position. I suppose it is a question of 'watch this space'
One of the worst things for a party's electoral chances is a stream of news over time that creates a seep in effect amongst the public. Be it division, incompetence, vested interests or indeed dodgy extremism.
Labour either gets a grip of its David Koresh of a leader who just doesn't seem to be able to help himself or it finds a that seep in effect will apply to it.
Senior Labour source on aides being in dodgy FB groups:
"On Facebook you can be added to a group without your knowledge. That happens quite often." (Observer)
As I understand it you will be sent a notification by FB. So these aides claiming they knew nothing about joining these groups is potentially a bit iffy.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.
This site was literally in celebration mode in September 2015 when he won. We knew how problematic Corbyn was even back then, the difference is Tories on this site thought he guaranteed them years in power so were happy for him to be leader. Now we know that Corbyn could win in 2022 and it’s a different story.
Yes very true , they nearly crapped themselves when that exit poll came out.However in my opinion it was the best result , as it knocked them out of their complacent stupor.
Not really, as instead they veered into weakened indecision on everything. Personally I thought the best outcome was, as it was before, a small,not comfortable Tory majority. They would know they have to be careful, couldn't take support for granted, but had numbers to get by day to day.
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
Electoral Commission wont allow similar names.
You mean the days of the likes of the Literal Democrats is over?
Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza?
On the contrary - if there are things that need to be criticised he can and should do so, and in such a way as to provide a contrast with those who use criticism of the situation there as a fig leaf for their anti-semitism. It will show the anti-semites and those who succour them that the leader can continue to speak out as he thinks necessary, even as he sees that they are rooted out, thus proving the difference between the two.
Odd she put "Westminster sex abuse allegations" on that list. IMO that's not an example of the media at its finest. Aided and abetted, of course, by the odious Watson.
Senior Labour source on aides being in dodgy FB groups:
"On Facebook you can be added to a group without your knowledge. That happens quite often." (Observer)
As I understand it you will be sent a notification by FB. So these aides claiming they knew nothing about joining these groups is potentially a bit iffy.
But might they claim they were added, the notification was easy to miss (or the name was such that there was no indication of some of the content therein), so they really didn't know? How easy to prove otherwise?
One of the worst things for a party's electoral chances is a stream of news over time that creates a seep in effect amongst the public. Be it division, incompetence, vested interests or indeed dodgy extremism.
Labour either gets a grip of its David Koresh of a leader who just doesn't seem to be able to help himself or it finds a that seep in effect will apply to it.
Perhaps. A week or two of some bad news, while the government has had a reasonable few weeks, but now they are on break, and the membership has not reacted badly to the news in any case, so how much seepage has there been?
The cumulative effect of story after story is, I think, not something that can be entirely discounted, but I do think it is easy for the narrative to break, or fade, in the face of something the electorate is more concerned about. It's not like many are expecting a big impact on the locals in a month.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
Charles Moore: "Mr Corbyn, you see, is the political equivalent of someone who is hauled in for a couple of recent misdemeanours and then turns out to have a record as long as your arm."
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
Or desperate. Having looked at it all over the weekend, they have realised what a cesspit he has been swimming in for years.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
I don't know why you would be surprised that people will believe in an idea so strongly they will be very extreme about it - we don't even need religion to see how extreme people can be over ideas, and they don't need to be supernatural ones of life and death either, when at least when it is about that it makes more sense - but in any case as an atheist I would say that persecution perpetrated by christians in the past or even presently in some palces doesn't mean it is shrugworthy to see then on the receiving end in other places.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
Considering the mural comment was from 2002, I suspect that it has already been picked over fairly thoroughly.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
They are also naive to think that Guido (and others) haven't already lined up their screenshots for the coming days and weeks.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
They are also naive to think that Guido (and others) haven't already lined up their screenshots for the coming days and weeks.
One would think if they had many more killer screengrabs they would have one to hand to display now that the page is gone, to go 'Aha, too late Mr Corbyn', but perhaps that is being saved for tomorrow.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
They are also naive to think that Guido (and others) haven't already lined up their screenshots for the coming days and weeks.
One would think if they had many more killer screengrabs they would have one to hand to display now that the page is gone, to go 'Aha, too late Mr Corbyn', but perhaps that is being saved for tomorrow.
Why use one now when the deletion story is enough to maintain the narrative? Wait for them to think they are safe and hit them with a big one
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
Considering the mural comment was from 2002, I suspect that it has already been picked over fairly thoroughly.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
Maybe you should allow for the possibility that the persistence of religious beliefs is because such belief, the moral framework it can bring and the comfort that it can give answer some need in human beings.
Even atheists seem to want to believe in something and some of their belief systems have been quite as absurd and dangerous.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
I don't know why you would be surprised that people will believe in an idea so strongly they will be very extreme about it - we don't even need religion to see how extreme people can be over ideas, and they don't need to be supernatural ones of life and death either, when at least when it is about that it makes more sense - but in any case as an atheist I would say that persecution perpetrated by christians in the past or even presently in some palces doesn't mean it is shrugworthy to see then on the receiving end in other places.
I suppose it is probably better to commit heinous acts in the name of a God, rather than some perverse, contrived ideology, or worse on behalf of some megalomaniac.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
I don't know why you would be surprised that people will believe in an idea so strongly they will be very extreme about it - we don't even need religion to see how extreme people can be over ideas, and they don't need to be supernatural ones of life and death either, when at least when it is about that it makes more sense - but in any case as an atheist I would say that persecution perpetrated by christians in the past or even presently in some palces doesn't mean it is shrugworthy to see then on the receiving end in other places.
I suppose it is probably better to commit heinous acts in the name of a God, rather than some perverse, contrived ideology, or worse on behalf of some megalomaniac.
I don't think it better, but I think it more understandable people are so extreme when it comes to matters of eternity, as they see it, than mundane political ideology.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.
I think he was looking for the ones being given a free pass for it.
err - If she had her way he would have had a free pass??
You mean you were not swayed by her defence that she was simply a fool, seeking to defend him before she even knew what he needed defending from?
That wasn't a defence. It was a failed attempt at an excuse. Why should she need a defence when it was all just a meeeedja conspiracy to get at St Jeremy of Palestine?
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
I don't know why you would be surprised that people will believe in an idea so strongly they will be very extreme about it - we don't even need religion to see how extreme people can be over ideas, and they don't need to be supernatural ones of life and death either, when at least when it is about that it makes more sense - but in any case as an atheist I would say that persecution perpetrated by christians in the past or even presently in some palces doesn't mean it is shrugworthy to see then on the receiving end in other places.
I suppose it is probably better to commit heinous acts in the name of a God, rather than some perverse, contrived ideology, or worse on behalf of some megalomaniac.
I don't think it better, but I think it more understandable people are so extreme when it comes to matters of eternity, as they see it, than mundane political ideology.
I would rather that we were nice to each other and didn't believe in anything silly...
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
Considering the mural comment was from 2002, I suspect that it has already been picked over fairly thoroughly.
Reported that it was 2012 not 2002
My mistake, but as FB only started 14 years ago, 2002 would have been rather ahead of the curve!
Thing is, there is no clearly defined "centre faction" in Labour. It is divided between liberal Blairites such as Umunna and Bradshaw and old school right-wingers (in Labour terms) such as Watson, Burnham and Flint.
You are right but I try to avoid too many references to Blairites as some people don't like it.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
Considering the mural comment was from 2002, I suspect that it has already been picked over fairly thoroughly.
Reported that it was 2012 not 2002
My mistake, but as FB only started 14 years ago, 2002 would have been rather ahead of the curve!
Nonetheless probably picked over already.
I suspect Guido and others have lots of damaging information and they will drip feed it into the narrative. Also big debate on it in HOC on the 17th April
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
Understandably
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
So it is deleted rather than set to private while it has a cleanup? Seems like an unnecessary strategy - I'd have thought Guido and others would have found most of the smoking guns in there already, and he presumably will get a new page soon given the usefulness of engaging with all their members, so sanitising it rather than burning it to the ground seems like it would be enough.
They have retained his official Jeremy Corbyn MP account from what I have read. So that is still there. It is the one that pre-dated his ascent to the leadership that has gone. Hard to say whether it has been deleted or set to private. Either way it looks like a cover-up.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
Indeed. And there is no way they will be able to keep what has been published already secret.
Considering the mural comment was from 2002, I suspect that it has already been picked over fairly thoroughly.
Reported that it was 2012 not 2002
My mistake, but as FB only started 14 years ago, 2002 would have been rather ahead of the curve!
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
We had a Christian office manager who was Pakistani in our Islamabad office, some 15-20 years ago. The story she told of the treatment of Christians back then was horrific. I can't imagine it has improved any since.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.
I think he was looking for the ones being given a free pass for it.
err - If she had her way he would have had a free pass??
You mean you were not swayed by her defence that she was simply a fool, seeking to defend him before she even knew what he needed defending from?
That wasn't a defence. It was a failed attempt at an excuse. Why should she need a defence when it was all just a meeeedja conspiracy to get at St Jeremy of Palestine?
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
I don't know why you would be surprised that people will believe in an idea so strongly they will be very extreme about it - we don't even need religion to see how extreme people can be over ideas, and they don't need to be supernatural ones of life and death either, when at least when it is about that it makes more sense - but in any case as an atheist I would say that persecution perpetrated by christians in the past or even presently in some palces doesn't mean it is shrugworthy to see then on the receiving end in other places.
I suppose it is probably better to commit heinous acts in the name of a God, rather than some perverse, contrived ideology, or worse on behalf of some megalomaniac.
I don't think it better, but I think it more understandable people are so extreme when it comes to matters of eternity, as they see it, than mundane political ideology.
I would rather that we were nice to each other and didn't believe in anything silly...
Ideally, yes, but humans are never going to agree entirely on what is or is not silly, and we cannot force people not to.
One of the worst things for a party's electoral chances is a stream of news over time that creates a seep in effect amongst the public. Be it division, incompetence, vested interests or indeed dodgy extremism.
Labour either gets a grip of its David Koresh of a leader who just doesn't seem to be able to help himself or it finds a that seep in effect will apply to it.
An interesting indication of that seep will be if Corbyn starts becoming the butt of TV comedy shows like Mock The Week for Labour's anti-semitism. That was the point at which it became clear that Miliband was a dead man walking....but for that comedy to work, the story has to have seeped into the public consciousness.
The seamless way that PB can go from fudging Bojo's racist terminology to getting all sanctimonious on the ass of a Jewish person recounting a joke is almost..ALMOST..impressive.
Cracking point, except that I said nothing about the loathsome Bojo , I don't believe roger is Jewish, and I really am genuinely against antisemitism and death camps and stuff, if you can believe such a thing.
You'll have to get over this thing that posts are all about YOU.
I did check, and thought I was the most likely candidate. Happy Easter.
FPT
Same to you.
By the bye, on the basis of several thing Roger has mentioned in the past, I'd assumed he was Jewish. Since I tend to think of that as mostly a positive, I hadn't really thought much more about it. If it's not the case apologies to him, no one likes an identity thrust upon them.
UD. You were right and Izzy was wrong though I don't consider it an identity more a cross to bear. Imagine being the only pupil in a prep school in North Wales not to get the chance to sing in the church choir!
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.
I think he was looking for the ones being given a free pass for it.
err - If she had her way he would have had a free pass??
You mean you were not swayed by her defence that she was simply a fool, seeking to defend him before she even knew what he needed defending from?
That wasn't a defence. It was a failed attempt at an excuse. Why should she need a defence when it was all just a meeeedja conspiracy to get at St Jeremy of Palestine?
I see I need to work on highlighting my sarcasm.
Could you post it in green just to make it doubly clear??!
One of the worst things for a party's electoral chances is a stream of news over time that creates a seep in effect amongst the public. Be it division, incompetence, vested interests or indeed dodgy extremism.
Labour either gets a grip of its David Koresh of a leader who just doesn't seem to be able to help himself or it finds a that seep in effect will apply to it.
An interesting indication of that seep will be if Corbyn starts becoming the butt of TV comedy shows like Mock The Week for Labour's anti-semitism. That was the point at which it became clear that Miliband was a dead man walking....but for that comedy to work, the story has to have seeped into the public consciousness.
We have had 10 days of coverage of it so far - I think it is safe to say that the public are aware of Corbyn's links to this issue
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
We had a Christian office manager who was Pakistani in our Islamabad office, some 15-20 years ago. The story she told of the treatment of Christians back then was horrific. I can't imagine it has improved any since.
One of the worst things for a party's electoral chances is a stream of news over time that creates a seep in effect amongst the public. Be it division, incompetence, vested interests or indeed dodgy extremism.
Labour either gets a grip of its David Koresh of a leader who just doesn't seem to be able to help himself or it finds a that seep in effect will apply to it.
An interesting indication of that seep will be if Corbyn starts becoming the butt of TV comedy shows like Mock The Week for Labour's anti-semitism. That was the point at which it became clear that Miliband was a dead man walking....but for that comedy to work, the story has to have seeped into the public consciousness.
We have had 10 days of coverage of it so far - I think it is safe to say that the public are aware of Corbyn's links to this issue
OT Talking of religion .....though I'm with tyson on this having just been to Mantova and seeing a spectacular display of synchronised walking by huge numbers of nuns looking like a harmless version of Ku Klux Klan I think I'd miss the paraphernalia if it wasn't there.
OT Talking of religion .....though I'm with tyson on this having just been to Mantova and seeing a spectacular display of synchronised walking by huge numbers of nuns looking like a harmless version of Ku Klux Klan I think I'd miss the paraphernalia if it wasn't there.
"seeing a spectacular display of synchronised walking by huge numbers of nuns" is possibly the most intriguing dozen consecutive words ever written on pb.com!!
The seamless way that PB can go from fudging Bojo's racist terminology to getting all sanctimonious on the ass of a Jewish person recounting a joke is almost..ALMOST..impressive.
Cracking point, except that I said nothing about the loathsome Bojo , I don't believe roger is Jewish, and I really am genuinely against antisemitism and death camps and stuff, if you can believe such a thing.
You'll have to get over this thing that posts are all about YOU.
I did check, and thought I was the most likely candidate. Happy Easter.
FPT
Same to you.
By the bye, on the basis of several thing Roger has mentioned in the past, I'd assumed he was Jewish. Since I tend to think of that as mostly a positive, I hadn't really thought much more about it. If it's not the case apologies to him, no one likes an identity thrust upon them.
UD. You were right and Izzy was wrong though I don't consider it an identity more a cross to bear. Imagine being the only pupil in a prep school in North Wales not to get the chance to sing in the church choir!
Ah, glad I wasn't being (inaccurately) presumptious.
OT Talking of religion .....though I'm with tyson on this having just been to Mantova and seeing a spectacular display of synchronised walking by huge numbers of nuns looking like a harmless version of Ku Klux Klan I think I'd miss the paraphernalia if it wasn't there.
"seeing a spectacular display of synchronised walking by huge numbers of nuns" is possibly the most intriguing dozen consecutive words ever written on pb.com!!
I think I'll take that as a compliment and even if it wasn't intended it's at least a gasp of fresh air from the anti semite obsessives on here.
(OT. What did you make of 'You Were Never really Here'? I couldn't make head nor tail of it)
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
The whole story or just parts of it? There must be evidence of parts of it, because no way the leader of a party says there is a problem with anti-semitism in their party unless they are certain it exists.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.
It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.
Roy Smart, for two. Hasn't quite made the headlines yet, newspapers probably waiting until the blood libeller from Hillingdon has had a full news cycle.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
Absolutely - I saw a report recently which showed christians were the most persecuted religion world wide
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
Julian Baggini was one of the reasons I was disappointed that Radio 4 decided not to include non-religious contributors to thought for the day. Here he has some typically sensible advice for atheists struggling with the nature of belief.
He added: 'I have never been anti-Semitic. I was expecting this - it's normal that any pro-Israelis wouldn't want any pro-Palestinians to run in the May election.
He added: 'I have never been anti-Semitic. I was expecting this - it's normal that any pro-Israelis wouldn't want any pro-Palestinians to run in the May election.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
I find it hard to fathom .Never met anyone ever denying the Holocaust.The only mention I remember was years ago , when a poster on here ,was said to be one.However never read his posts on the subject.So maybe they were deleted by the moderators on this site.
He added: 'I have never been anti-Semitic. I was expecting this - it's normal that any pro-Israelis wouldn't want any pro-Palestinians to run in the May election.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
Already linked to below. Of the 50 items listed 2,4*,5*,7*,9, 10, 26, 31, 46, 50 concern holocaust denial (asterisks for those where this is entirely explicit rather than by implication).
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
I find it hard to fathom .Never met anyone ever denying the Holocaust.The only mention I remember was years ago , when a poster on here ,was said to be one.However never read his posts on the subject.So maybe they were deleted by the moderators on this site.
Not everyone who is anti-semitic is going to go so far as to be a holocaust denier. At least 1 such person has been found. But there is a self admitted problem with anti-semitism generally, whether or not all those anti-semites go so far as to be holocaust deniers.
So I don't really know what you are finding so hard to fathom - is it better that the self admitted problem of anti-semitism is not going to take the form of all those found being holocaust deniers? I guess, but that's still not great. I wish the party well in tossing out all its anti-semites, and hope other parties are performing their own checks right now too.
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past. - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
The near total absence of evidence for this story is its most remarkable feature.
The whole story or just parts of it? There must be evidence of parts of it, because no way the leader of a party says there is a problem with anti-semitism in their party unless they are certain it exists.
I appreciate that , but Holocaust deniers , I asked Cyclefree to name them.As I was not aware that was a major problem anywhere to be honest , just a few cranks and an historian , I ever remember.
He added: 'I have never been anti-Semitic. I was expecting this - it's normal that any pro-Israelis wouldn't want any pro-Palestinians to run in the May election.
Those pesky zionists
Why are pro-Israelis interested in local elections in England?
Comments
Fake News more like.
That's a euphemism for airbrushing his own history, right?
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/980376635122823168
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-43610095
Name recognition will be key.
Labour either gets a grip of its David Koresh of a leader who just doesn't seem to be able to help himself or it finds a that seep in effect will apply to it.
"On Facebook you can be added to a group without your knowledge. That happens quite often." (Observer)
As I understand it you will be sent a notification by FB. So these aides claiming they knew nothing about joining these groups is potentially a bit iffy.
Telegraph appear to be asking questions as to WHY it was deleted
The cumulative effect of story after story is, I think, not something that can be entirely discounted, but I do think it is easy for the narrative to break, or fade, in the face of something the electorate is more concerned about. It's not like many are expecting a big impact on the locals in a month.
When I first saw the story on Guido, I assumed it was a late AF joke - given that was posted just after midday - because no way would they be so stupid to delete his account as it would look as if they were covering something up.
It would appear that they are that stupid.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/labours-pockets-of-anti-semitism-the-evidence/
And there are plenty more.
And it is nearly always the attempt at a cover-up that does the most damage...
What comes around goes around as they say.....
What I find surprising is that human beings still believe in supernatural beings en masse and are quite willing to behave in quite extreme ways in pursuit of their really quite absurd beliefs....
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/980461579702546432
Even atheists seem to want to believe in something and some of their belief systems have been quite as absurd and dangerous.
Nonetheless probably picked over already.
If not - shoddy!
Fun fact: the day after Spurs last beat Chelsea at Stamford Bridge Nelson Mandela was released from prison.
Pull the other one
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/980331839243063296
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/980332195230437377
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/980332589004345345
DaysHours since labour embroiled in a new antisemitism scandal....The only way Spurs could miss out if they finish fourth is if Liverpool have a slump, and finish outside of the top 4 and win the Champions League.
Never too late on the singing front!
(OT. What did you make of 'You Were Never really Here'? I couldn't make head nor tail of it)
In order
CL winners
EL winners
League winners
2nd
3rd
4th
But a max of 5 so 4th can miss out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/88rmso/some_facebook_posts_of_roy_smart_labour_council/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/01/atheists-logic-easter-faith-belief
He added: 'I have never been anti-Semitic. I was expecting this - it's normal that any pro-Israelis wouldn't want any pro-Palestinians to run in the May election.
Those pesky zionists
Already linked to below. Of the 50 items listed 2,4*,5*,7*,9, 10, 26, 31, 46, 50 concern holocaust denial (asterisks for those where this is entirely explicit rather than by implication).
any wannabe Corbynista knows that
So I don't really know what you are finding so hard to fathom - is it better that the self admitted problem of anti-semitism is not going to take the form of all those found being holocaust deniers? I guess, but that's still not great. I wish the party well in tossing out all its anti-semites, and hope other parties are performing their own checks right now too.