Very sad how people like Josiasjessop support the brutal murder and oppression of the palestinian people by the settler state of Israel.
Israel is now an apartheid state that now treat's its own Arab citizens as 2nd class citizens.
It's interesting you should name me in that.
For the record: I support the people of Palestine *and* Israel, not their leaderships who often perform actions that are not in the interests of 'their' people. Criticising the actions of the Israeli government is fair enough (and there is bucketsfull to criticise); however if you are genuinely interested in peace than there is also lots of criticism that can be sent towards the Palestinian authorities. Neither side's leadership currently want peace and are certainly not interested in de-escalation.
You cannot pretend to be interested in human rights abuses and wrongdoing on one side of a conflict, and ignore the human rights abuses and wrongdoing by 'your' side.
As an aside, I don't think a single poster on here has agreed with Israel's recent Regularisation or Nation-State Laws - in fact, there has been nothing but criticism of them, including by myself. They're utterly wrong and unhelpful.
Still, I am just a house-husband, so what do I know?
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
snip
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
His internal critics have smelt blood before (2016). They need to learn to be able to carry out a successful despatching of him as leader, and that still seems to be something which they are unable to do.
It is almost impossible to get rid of a Labour leader unless they die, are convicted of a crime or resign. There is only the doubtful mechanism of a leadership election and they are difficult to organise.
We saw that with Brown, we are seeing it with Corbyn.
It does make me even more unimpressed with Blair's cowardice in not firing Brown in 2001, as no way would Brown have been able to topple him. Even in 2007 Blair could have survived if he had wanted to.
Agree with you on Blair and Brown, I’ve always wondered why he didn’t just sack Brown then. Presumably he felt guilty about how things panned our, as apparently pre 1994 (from what I’ve read/heard) it was Brown who was expected to be leader after John Smith.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Mr Palmer recently suggested that the opposition in Venezuela bear at least some of the blame for the state of the country. I’d suggest that he’s not a wholly objective commentator.
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
Bloody hell - they are finally getting rattled!
EDIT: although they have probably calculated that enough votes are already in for him to be safely home...
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Yah, I'm surprised Southerners aren't experiencing a water shortage given the Southern Jessies water down their shandies and other booze.
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
As a Labour member who's already mentally checked out (I stayed in to vote in the NEC elections, but now I think I'm done) this is just so sad and disgusted. Decent people, unable to see what they're doing and what they're turning Labour into and what they are turning themselves into. Apologists for racism. That's what you're turning yourself and Labour into.
Is it ok for a backbencher to have a few dodgy associations? Perhaps. But Corbyn helped organise these events - it's not as if he didn't check their CV HE BOOKED A ROOM for an event called "Never again for anyone - Auschwitz to Gaza". He went on PressTV and said he saw "the hand of Israel in Islamist attacks. He donated money to and met the Holocaust denier Paul Eisen AFTER the organisation he chaired (the Palestine Solidarity Campaign) cut ties with him over his holocaust denial. He He appeared at an event with a neo-Nazi and didn't walk out. He appeared again on PressTV and said he "didn't see why" a group of convicted Palestinian terrorists were in jail. He even flew out for a commemoration of one of the Munich terrorists (another sickening crime whatever your views on Palestine) He invited Raed Salah, a man convicted of the blood libel, to parliament - not to mention his friendships with the likes of Willsman, Jackie Walker, and Elleanne Green. There's that mural. We could go on but it's exhausting. Those are the occasions where someone had a video camera and put it on YouTube or there was a r
He did all these things and there's proof of him doing them. His supporters respond by saying anyone pointing out these things happened and they're pretty offensive is making up smears or is somehow connected to an Israeli plot. This is what by saying "I still support him" you're enabling and make it worse - because then the say "Oh Jews must be making it up". You're throwing them under the bus by making people who say that think you agree with them.
If it had happened a few times, and he was a backbencher then perhaps he'd get the benefit of the doubt. We've all made mistakes, he's passionate about Palestine etc. But he's got bigger responsibilities now - and he's still making excuses and being evasive. You're supposed to be the Labour Party Nick. If a minority says the demonstrable actions of your leader, as well as his and the party's reaction and inaction over complaints makes them fear for their wellbeing and safety, it really is time to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt and say "we're better than this and we don't need this". After all, it's not as if McDonnell and Abbott felt the need to do all this abhorrent stuff.
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
Bloody hell - they are finally getting rattled!
Momentum, or at least some of them, have been some way apart from the 'it's all a smear' side for at least some time. This was from April.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
e.g.
"In Blumenthal's address, which took place later that evening, he called Israel 'a racist society' in which non-Jewish Africans were 'attacked by right-wing mobs in scenes reminiscent of Kristallnacht'."
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
LOL, I saw one of them on twitter attacking Owen Jones for agreeing with John McDonnell on the anti semitism row today. Some of his supporters are so far gone, it’s unreal. Its like they are trying to be the hard left’s answer to Trump supporters.
I feel like I understand almost all of the political fanatic's defence of their chosen subject (whichever side there on) except for that, which is seen in this case, of people who take up positions defending Corbyn which he himself does not even take. It's not as though even a fanatic will believe everything the person they are fanatical about, but the 'deny there's a problem at all' brigade are explicitly opposed to Corbyn's own position.
This reminds of Marina Hyde’s excellent article comparing Corbyn and Blair: underlining that the biggest weakness of both is that they believe they are morally infallible. This extends to many of Corbyn’s supporters, who also believe he is morally infallible. Admitting that Labour under his leadership has an issue with anti semitism would be admitting that he isn’t so morally infallible after all, which is why they take the positions they do.
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Yah, I'm surprised Southerners aren't experiencing a water shortage given the Southern Jessies water down their shandies and other booze.
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
Our southern aquifers are in good state after a couple of wet years. Apparently.
Severn Trent at the height of the heatwave were sending me texts saying they have plenty of water but did not have the capacity to move it to the right locations quickly enough. So asked me to be careful in my usage.
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Yah, I'm surprised Southerners aren't experiencing a water shortage given the Southern Jessies water down their shandies and other booze.
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
Down here we all save water by taking a shower with someone.....
Sky News: cost of food may go up. Isn't that good news on the obesity front?
Sky, in the person of Faisal, seem to be having a bit of a nervous breakdown over Brexit.
What will come first post 29 March - world war 3 or the global Brexit recession? And Faisal thought Cameron was overdoing the project fear and hysteria!
Most of the antisemitic JC associates brought up today have been Jews. Including an Auschwitz survivor or two. What happens when they call Israel nazis? Do the official definitions of antisemitism still count?
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
LOL, I saw one of them on twitter attacking Owen Jones for agreeing with John McDonnell on the anti semitism row today. Some of his supporters are so far gone, it’s unreal. Its like they are trying to be the hard left’s answer to Trump supporters.
I feel like I understand almost all of the political fanatic's defence of their chosen subject (whichever side there on) except for that, which is seen in this case, of people who take up positions defending Corbyn which he himself does not even take. It's not as though even a fanatic will believe everything the person they are fanatical about, but the 'deny there's a problem at all' brigade are explicitly opposed to Corbyn's own position.
This reminds of Marina Hyde’s excellent article comparing Corbyn and Blair: underlining that the biggest weakness of both is that they believe they are morally infallible. This extends to many of Corbyn’s supporters, who also believe he is morally infallible. Admitting that Labour under his leadership has an issue with anti semitism would be admitting that he isn’t so morally infallible after all, which is why they take the positions they do.
That’s religion (both lower and upper case) for you. An unwarranted sense of virtue.
I must remember that excuse. Next time I want someone controversial to give a speech, disappear from the room and leave the podium empty so he can rant for a while. I'm sure no-one would try to stop him, or shout down his odious words ...
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Yah, I'm surprised Southerners aren't experiencing a water shortage given the Southern Jessies water down their shandies and other booze.
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
I was thinking of buying some shares in Wessex Water on the basis that: their water levels are high, and most customers are metered and using lots more than usual.
But our fecking governments have long since flogged them off and they are now owned by a Malaysian company and (presumably) listed in Kaula Lumpar. How ridiculous is that?
Unfortunately, I've recently finished teaching my little 'un to count backwards.
Instead of "nine little sheep, eight little sheep..." I could have used: "nine Momentum Corbynites, eight Momentum Corbynites ..."
Or perhaps not, as the state of Labour probably means the following will happen:
There were nine Momentum Corbynites sitting on a wall. And if one Momentum Corbynite should accidentally fall (*), there'll be nine Momentum Corbynites, sitting on a wall."
(*) The fall being the result of a ZioNazi plot to undermine the very foundations of the wall, which represented the repression of all the people of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Russia et al by their hideous undemocratic oppositions.
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
The point about this too is that it's the excuse he always makes. He made it about Raed Salah, he made it (falsely) about Paul Eisen. You'd have thought that once you'd mistakenly lent your support to a raving anti-Semite you'd be twice shy.
There comes a point where to believe his excuses you have to believe he has the mind of a vegetable.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
The point about this too is that it's the excuse he always makes. He made it about Raed Salah, he made it (falsely) about Paul Eisen. You'd have thought that once you'd mistakenly lent your support to a raving anti-Semite you'd be twice shy.
There comes a point where to believe his excuses you have to believe he has the mind of a vegetable.
And yet most either do believe them, or do not care? It is now just a silly season story.
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
Taking over both at once would be a tough ask for any single person!
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
Taking over both at once would be a tough ask for any single person!
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
If only
What happened to your avatar Big_G? You're looking redder than BoJo in the previous header!
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
Taking over both at once would be a tough ask for any single person!
Maybe Gareth Southgate could have a crack?
If Southgate could take over the Tories and Lineker Labour we'd be a sight better off imo.
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
Taking over both at once would be a tough ask for any single person!
Maybe Gareth Southgate could have a crack?
If Southgate could take over the Tories and Lineker Labour we'd be a sight better off imo.
Most of the antisemitic JC associates brought up today have been Jews. Including an Auschwitz survivor or two. What happens when they call Israel nazis? Do the official definitions of antisemitism still count?
AIUI yes.
IANAE, and its an area you need to tread carefully. However going for extreme cases, I would probably call groups like 'Association of German National Jews', or Group 13 anti-Semitic. Not that their support for the Nazis did them much good in the long run.
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Yah, I'm surprised Southerners aren't experiencing a water shortage given the Southern Jessies water down their shandies and other booze.
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
I was thinking of buying some shares in Wessex Water on the basis that: their water levels are high, and most customers are metered and using lots more than usual.
But our fecking governments have long since flogged them off and they are now owned by a Malaysian company and (presumably) listed in Kaula Lumpar. How ridiculous is that?
Better speak to Enron. It’s been owned by the same company for 10+ years which seems like a long term investment of the sort we should like. Personally I’d buy a water fund, I remember working with a Swiss one a few years ago. Trouble is that the politics of water are “why should I pay”.
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
If only
What happened to your avatar Big_G? You're looking redder than BoJo in the previous header!
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
Outside a few lone voices, I cannot recall a great many people ever thought Corbyn himself was actually anti-Semitic. Even now, after Hodge apparently called him that to his face, it seems a minority view unless, like you say, it is a passive thing. It still seems to be more about dealing with those who are, and enabling them.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
It does make him completely unfit to be leader - but then he was never fit to be leader. Indeed, I think somewhere deep within himself he knows it too.
Which is why the value is on him to quit sooner rather than later.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
It does make him completely unfit to be leader - but then he was never fit to be leader. Indeed, I think somewhere deep within himself he knows it too.
Which is why the value is on him to quit sooner rather than later.
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
If only
What happened to your avatar Big_G? You're looking redder than BoJo in the previous header!
I decided to change and in the change something appeared a bit strange until I had put in place a more relaxed image taken at the Sofitel at terminal 5 before I went to Rome on our recent cruise.
As for Boris he is wholly unreliable and unsuited to pm, but Sajid Javid is someone I could support
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
It does make him completely unfit to be leader - but then he was never fit to be leader. Indeed, I think somewhere deep within himself he knows it too.
Which is why the value is on him to quit sooner rather than later.
Not before Brexit, I'd wager.
26th May 2019 still looks value for an announcement. Two months after Brexit and with a reasonable pretext.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
I think my invented definition of 'passive anti-Semitism' is as follows: it is allowing views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if you do not pronounce those views yourself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
But that's a bit vague and nebulous.
However I'm starting to wonder if I'm giving him too much credit, and he is actually a full0blown anti-Semite.
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Yah, I'm surprised Southerners aren't experiencing a water shortage given the Southern Jessies water down their shandies and other booze.
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
I was thinking of buying some shares in Wessex Water on the basis that: their water levels are high, and most customers are metered and using lots more than usual.
But our fecking governments have long since flogged them off and they are now owned by a Malaysian company and (presumably) listed in Kaula Lumpar. How ridiculous is that?
Better speak to Enron. It’s been owned by the same company for 10+ years which seems like a long term investment of the sort we should like. Personally I’d buy a water fund, I remember working with a Swiss one a few years ago. Trouble is that the politics of water are “why should I pay”.
But you were making a political point I guess.
I was, but not party political - both main parties have overseen sale of UK's infrastructure to the highest bidder without regard for the integrity of the owner (e.g. Enron) or location of the stock.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
I'm coming at it from a different perspective, as a long-standing acquaintance of his, and someone used to the myriad of meetings one gets involved in as an MP. I've not checked out the details but I think it's very unlikely that he was aware of these views. I'm completely confident that he's neither anti-semitic nor pro-KKK.
Should he have been more careful to check out who was being invited? Quite possibly. He's been in Parliament a long time and if you dig into every meeting an MP's ever helped organise you'll find some mistakes (I once had a public meeting on a platform with a BNP supporter, which on reflection perhaps wasn't a good idea). I also think that as a backbencher he'll have been less careful than in his current role. But the fact that we're suddenly debating something in 2010 and listening to someone's secret recordings does suggest a systematic effort to undermine him, and it doesn't have my support.
But as I said, I don't really feel the need to debate it that much. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, and you write about it here at length every day, so clearly feel very strongly. I'm quite sure you're mistaken, but sometimes people can sincerely disagree.
On the crisis currently rocking labour when will those mps who care for the party join together and collectively resign the whip.
There is no point in hanging on as in so doing their objections carry no weight
My best guess is that they're staying put because (a) they don't want to surrender Labour outright to Corbyn, and (b) they think it means electoral oblivion for all of them (not just through splitting the Left, but also because most voters in any typical election are robotic, and will tick the Labour box on the ballot paper in any case.)
Their best hope is that either something happens to Corbyn before the next election or that he loses it, and in either event the opportunity arises for the election of a successor who is more palatable, rather than even less so. They might lose a few more malcontents like John Woodcock, but most of them are going to try to ride all of this out.
The other part of the calculation is that all of these rows over Corbyn's past associations appear to be doing him precious little harm with the public, so the Corbyn-sceptics are liable to suffer little or no electoral damage through guilt by association after he's gone.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
"From what I've recently discovered".... Didn't he listen to the guy at the time???
Risible excuse making.
He does seem to imply he wasn't there, and was out looking for his booked speaker. I think there's far more value in looking at what the booked speaker said.
It might fairly be said of Corbyn that at all times he is not all there anyway.
A good one too. He's quite clearly the useful idiot for antisemites, though I don't believe he is actually antisemitic himself (is that the same as the difference between passive and active antisemitism that I think @JosiasJessop was calling it before?)
I think my invented definition of 'passive anti-Semitism' is as follows: it is allowing views that are anti-Semitic to be aired and promoted without challenge, even if you do not pronounce those views yourself, yet would argue strongly against the airing or promotion of other forms of racism.
But that's a bit vague and nebulous.
However I'm starting to wonder if I'm giving him too much credit, and he is actually a full0blown anti-Semite.
I think he might be so simple that he has to hate everyone who doesn't agree with him about Palestine, which he sees as the most noble cause. So he hates most Jews, but not because they're Jewish
On the crisis currently rocking labour when will those mps who care for the party join together and collectively resign the whip.
There is no point in hanging on as in so doing their objections carry no weight
My best guess is that they're staying put because (a) they don't want to surrender Labour outright to Corbyn, and (b) they think it means electoral oblivion for all of them (not just through splitting the Left, but also because most voters in any typical election are robotic, and will tick the Labour box on the ballot paper in any case.)
Their best hope is that either something happens to Corbyn before the next election or that he loses it, and in either event the opportunity arises for the election of a successor who is more palatable, rather than even less so. They might lose a few more malcontents like John Woodcock, but most of them are going to try to ride all of this out.
The other part of the calculation is that all of these rows over Corbyn's past associations appear to be doing him precious little harm with the public, so the Corbyn-sceptics are liable to suffer little or no electoral damage through guilt by association after he's gone.
Good post but I think this is doing him harm. It is a daily attack from the media who are devoid of any Brexit stories in the summer holidays and I would expect this to continue as more and more such meetings and videos emerge.
The media are like a dog with a bone when they think they have a big story
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
If only
What happened to your avatar Big_G? You're looking redder than BoJo in the previous header!
I decided to change and in the change something appeared a bit strange until I had put in place a more relaxed image taken at the Sofitel at terminal 5 before I went to Rome on our recent cruise.
As for Boris he is wholly unreliable and unsuited to pm, but Sajid Javid is someone I could support
Ah that's better... Although in that chair you look more like Little_G.
Any sane Labour party would be absolutely hammering the current Tory party day after day. Instead, it's a crazy lefty wankfest involving sniper rifles and feet. Won't someone sane please takeover both parties?
If only
What happened to your avatar Big_G? You're looking redder than BoJo in the previous header!
I decided to change and in the change something appeared a bit strange until I had put in place a more relaxed image taken at the Sofitel at terminal 5 before I went to Rome on our recent cruise.
As for Boris he is wholly unreliable and unsuited to pm, but Sajid Javid is someone I could support
Ah that's better... Although in that chair you look more like Little_G.
That's some armchair!
Modelled on Charles Rennie MackIntosh fabulous furniture it just had to be experienced
Comments
For the record: I support the people of Palestine *and* Israel, not their leaderships who often perform actions that are not in the interests of 'their' people. Criticising the actions of the Israeli government is fair enough (and there is bucketsfull to criticise); however if you are genuinely interested in peace than there is also lots of criticism that can be sent towards the Palestinian authorities. Neither side's leadership currently want peace and are certainly not interested in de-escalation.
You cannot pretend to be interested in human rights abuses and wrongdoing on one side of a conflict, and ignore the human rights abuses and wrongdoing by 'your' side.
As an aside, I don't think a single poster on here has agreed with Israel's recent Regularisation or Nation-State Laws - in fact, there has been nothing but criticism of them, including by myself. They're utterly wrong and unhelpful.
Still, I am just a house-husband, so what do I know?
EDIT: although they have probably calculated that enough votes are already in for him to be safely home...
Although as a good Muslim boy I really am not the best qualified to comment on alcohol.
Is it ok for a backbencher to have a few dodgy associations? Perhaps. But Corbyn helped organise these events - it's not as if he didn't check their CV HE BOOKED A ROOM for an event called "Never again for anyone - Auschwitz to Gaza". He went on PressTV and said he saw "the hand of Israel in Islamist attacks. He donated money to and met the Holocaust denier Paul Eisen AFTER the organisation he chaired (the Palestine Solidarity Campaign) cut ties with him over his holocaust denial. He He appeared at an event with a neo-Nazi and didn't walk out. He appeared again on PressTV and said he "didn't see why" a group of convicted Palestinian terrorists were in jail. He even flew out for a commemoration of one of the Munich terrorists (another sickening crime whatever your views on Palestine) He invited Raed Salah, a man convicted of the blood libel, to parliament - not to mention his friendships with the likes of Willsman, Jackie Walker, and Elleanne Green. There's that mural. We could go on but it's exhausting. Those are the occasions where someone had a video camera and put it on YouTube or there was a r
He did all these things and there's proof of him doing them. His supporters respond by saying anyone pointing out these things happened and they're pretty offensive is making up smears or is somehow connected to an Israeli plot. This is what by saying "I still support him" you're enabling and make it worse - because then the say "Oh Jews must be making it up". You're throwing them under the bus by making people who say that think you agree with them.
If it had happened a few times, and he was a backbencher then perhaps he'd get the benefit of the doubt. We've all made mistakes, he's passionate about Palestine etc. But he's got bigger responsibilities now - and he's still making excuses and being evasive. You're supposed to be the Labour Party Nick. If a minority says the demonstrable actions of your leader, as well as his and the party's reaction and inaction over complaints makes them fear for their wellbeing and safety, it really is time to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt and say "we're better than this and we don't need this". After all, it's not as if McDonnell and Abbott felt the need to do all this abhorrent stuff.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/antisemitism-labour-jeremy-corbyn-smears-momentum-a8285656.html
So I doubt they are rattled. Probably just annoyed some people are so stubborn they keep adding fuel to the fire.
"In Blumenthal's address, which took place later that evening, he called Israel 'a racist society' in which non-Jewish Africans were 'attacked by right-wing mobs in scenes reminiscent of Kristallnacht'."
Which might be allowed in Lab these days but..
https://www.stwater.co.uk/about-us/reservoir-levels/
https://youtu.be/TjOBcAelzJQ
There is no point in hanging on as in so doing their objections carry no weight
But our fecking governments have long since flogged them off and they are now owned by a Malaysian company and (presumably) listed in Kaula Lumpar. How ridiculous is that?
Instead of "nine little sheep, eight little sheep..." I could have used: "nine Momentum Corbynites, eight Momentum Corbynites ..."
Or perhaps not, as the state of Labour probably means the following will happen:
There were nine Momentum Corbynites sitting on a wall. And if one Momentum Corbynite should accidentally fall (*), there'll be nine Momentum Corbynites, sitting on a wall."
(*) The fall being the result of a ZioNazi plot to undermine the very foundations of the wall, which represented the repression of all the people of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Russia et al by their hideous undemocratic oppositions.
There comes a point where to believe his excuses you have to believe he has the mind of a vegetable.
Edit - I see @MJW has made the same point.
IANAE, and its an area you need to tread carefully. However going for extreme cases, I would probably call groups like 'Association of German National Jews', or Group 13 anti-Semitic. Not that their support for the Nazis did them much good in the long run.
But you were making a political point I guess.
That sounds REALLY harsh on women.
Which is why the value is on him to quit sooner rather than later.
As for Boris he is wholly unreliable and unsuited to pm, but Sajid Javid is someone I could support
But that's a bit vague and nebulous.
However I'm starting to wonder if I'm giving him too much credit, and he is actually a full0blown anti-Semite.
Should he have been more careful to check out who was being invited? Quite possibly. He's been in Parliament a long time and if you dig into every meeting an MP's ever helped organise you'll find some mistakes (I once had a public meeting on a platform with a BNP supporter, which on reflection perhaps wasn't a good idea). I also think that as a backbencher he'll have been less careful than in his current role. But the fact that we're suddenly debating something in 2010 and listening to someone's secret recordings does suggest a systematic effort to undermine him, and it doesn't have my support.
But as I said, I don't really feel the need to debate it that much. You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, and you write about it here at length every day, so clearly feel very strongly. I'm quite sure you're mistaken, but sometimes people can sincerely disagree.
Their best hope is that either something happens to Corbyn before the next election or that he loses it, and in either event the opportunity arises for the election of a successor who is more palatable, rather than even less so. They might lose a few more malcontents like John Woodcock, but most of them are going to try to ride all of this out.
The other part of the calculation is that all of these rows over Corbyn's past associations appear to be doing him precious little harm with the public, so the Corbyn-sceptics are liable to suffer little or no electoral damage through guilt by association after he's gone.
The media are like a dog with a bone when they think they have a big story
That's some armchair!
NEW THREAD