Oh Jeremy Corbyn (30 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

But it's not you is it - it's the general feeling that abuse is not reported equally, fairly or given equal levels of scrutiny, which leads (rightly or wrongly) to people questioning what is said and how it is portrayed.

Posted a link earlier in the thread to the only actual research I could find across both parties. Shows anti-Semitism in the Conservative party is a bigger problem than the Labour party and is rising while for Labour it is falling.

You would struggle to find an article in the mainstream media that reflected that.

It's ridiculous to accuse someone of prejudice because they criticise a countrys foreign or domestic policy.

I find it worrying that you have government sanctioned atrocities taking place in Israel yet anyone who mentions this is branded anti-sematic. We bombed Syria recently based on what their government was doing to its citizens but when it comes to Israel even making a negative comment towards them will see you labelled anti-sematic.

How hard is it to separate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? Even then there's much nuance to what is termed anti-Zionism. Or do those that are quick to shout down any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism really believe that, for example, all the Jewish people living in the UK want to live in Israel?
​

 

---

[clint van damme]

I don’t think making comments such as “Adolf was correct”, “Jews make Hitler look bad” and referring to female MPs as Yids and telling them to fuck off home a comment on foreign policy. These statements were made by labour councillors who to my knowledge are still employed by the party.

I don’t think Naz Shah saying Jews should be exported from Palestine to the US is a foreign policy comment. According to Corbyn it’s not anti Semite.

I don’t think a Muslim cleric who believes gays and Jews should be burned to death is the progressive voice of Muslims. Labour hierarchy does.

I don’t think liking a clearly racist cartoon is a foreign policy statement

I don’t think walking out of the commons while your own MPs are making statements regarding victimisation and raciscm is a foreign policy statement either.

Livingstone was on record 30 years ago saying the Labour Party was infected with Jewish money. Corbyn is of the same belief. It’s the same old “Jews have all the money”
Rhetoric.

those comments are anti Semitic, no doubt, that's not what I'm on about as well you know. As for the "Jews have all the money" comment there's examples of that in the tory dossier I linked so as I say it's not just Labour that has an issue.

But saying the Israeli government shouldn't of allowed IDF soldiers to shoot unarmed protestors in Gaza isn't antiemetic. Same as saying Saudi Arabia shouldn't be using white phosphorus in Yemen isn't Islamaphobic.

 

[Grendel]

Posted a link earlier in the thread to the only actual research I could find across both parties. Shows anti-Semitism in the Conservative party is a bigger problem than the Labour party and is rising while for Labour it is falling.

You would struggle to find an article in the mainstream media that reflected that.

I find it worrying that you have government sanctioned atrocities taking place in Israel yet anyone who mentions this is branded anti-sematic. We bombed Syria recently based on what their government was doing to its citizens but when it comes to Israel even making a negative comment towards them will see you labelled anti-sematic.

How hard is it to separate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? Even then there's much nuance to what is termed anti-Zionism. Or do those that are quick to shout down any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism really believe that, for example, all the Jewish people living in the UK want to live in Israel?
​

That isn’t research - and anti Zionism is actually what Naz Shah believes in - namely the forced repatriation of all Jews out of Israel.

Up for that are you? Getting the trains ready?

 

[clint van damme]

That isn’t research - and anti Zionism is actually what Naz Shah believes in - namely the forced repatriation of all Jews out of Israel.

Up for that are you? Getting the trains ready?

We've said there are issues in the Labour party, why won't you admit there are issues in the tory party?
Why did you dismiss Baroness Warsis comments so flippantly?

 

[Grendel]

We've said there are issues in the Labour party, why won't you admit there are issues in the tory party?
Why did you dismiss Baroness Warsis comments so flippantly?

Warsi is a publicity seeker and if May had as much baggage as Corbyn the Labour hierarchy would be all over it like a rash.

 

[rondog1973]

That isn’t research - and anti Zionism is actually what Naz Shah believes in - namely the forced repatriation of all Jews out of Israel.

Up for that are you? Getting the trains ready?

Anti zionism is opposition to the idea of a Jewish state for Jewish people only. Fuck all to do with repatriations and your dismal attempts to equate it to the tactics of the third reich.

 

[Ian1779]

We've said there are issues in the Labour party, why won't you admit there are issues in the tory party?
Why did you dismiss Baroness Warsis comments so flippantly?

He never will - he's blind to it, and his training makes him that way.

 

[Grendel]

Anti zionism is opposition to the idea of a Jewish state for Jewish people only. Fuck all to do with repatriations and your dismal attempts to equate it to the tactics of the third reich.

Ok

Naz Shah: timeline of events leading to MP's suspension from Labour

Remember everything Hitler did was legal.

 

[rondog1973]

Ok

Naz Shah: timeline of events leading to MP's suspension from Labour

Remember everything Hitler did was legal.

Couldn't give a shite what Naz Shah says. Anti zionism has nothing to do with repatriation.

 

[clint van damme]

Warsi is a publicity seeker and if May had as much baggage as Corbyn the Labour hierarchy would be all over it like a rash.

so you're dismissing Islamaphobia in the tory party, OK.
What about the racism in the dossier?

 

[Astute]

What's the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?

Hope this helps

 

[Grendel]

so you're dismissing Islamaphobia in the tory party, OK.
What about the racism in the dossier?

I’ll respond as you do by completely changing the subject

Labour councillor suspended over Islamophobic comment

 

[clint van damme]

I’ll respond as you do by completely changing the subject

Labour councillor suspended over Islamophobic comment

we're talking about racism and anti Semitism in our political parties, I'd say I've stayed well on topic.
The article you've linked doesn't surprise me, I don't deny Labour has issues, you're the one trying to point score by making out it only affects them.

 

[Grendel]

we're talking about racism and anti Semitism in our political parties, I'd say I've stayed well on topic.
The article you've linked doesn't surprise me, I don't deny Labour has issues, you're the one trying to point score by making out it only affects them.

The difference is the reaction of the political hierarchy. One acts and the other sweeps it under the carpet with a “nothing to see here” approach

 

[clint van damme]

The difference is the reaction of the political hierarchy. One acts and the other sweeps it under the carpet with a “nothing to see here” approach

you can't be serious with that comment?
You've just mentioned Naz Shah, she was suspended from the labour party, (you can argue she shouldn't have been allowed back in).

Contrast that with Ben Bradley, he actually got promoted so your comment is absolute nonsense.

 

[Grendel]

you can't be serious with that comment?
You've just mentioned Naz Shah, she was suspended from the labour party, (you can argue she shouldn't have been allowed back in).

Contrast that with Ben Bradley, he actually got promoted so your comment is absolute nonsense.

Shah was investigated by Livingstone (which is a bit like a doctor malpractice being investigated by Dr Shipman) who believed her comments were not anti semetic, 6 labour councillors who made appalling statements were suspended and are now back - oh and I believe in 5 days the grand Nazi of them all will return.

Bradley is the spy guy isn’t he?

 

[clint van damme]

Shah was investigated by Livingstone (which is a bit like a doctor malpractice being investigated by Dr Shipman) who believed her comments were not anti semetic, 6 labour councillors who made appalling statements were suspended and are now back - oh and I believe in 5 days the grand Nazi of them all will return.

Bradley is the spy guy isn’t he?

the spy guy, and the neuter the poor guy and the fan of Nazi eugenics guy, did his tory career no harm at all.

 

[Grendel]

the spy guy, and the neuter the poor guy and the fan of Nazi eugenics guy, did his tory career no harm at all.

Don’t know who the Nazi eugenics guy is.

 

[clint van damme]

Don’t know who the Nazi eugenics guy is.

it was Bradley, (sort of ties in with his neutering the poor comments).

 

[Grendel]

it was Bradley, (sort of ties in with his neutering the poor comments).

Well as he’s an MP in one of the most deprived areas in Britain I guess the next election will be a judgement on his comments.

 

[Astute]

Here we go again......

Labour candidate Mandy Richards faces fury over conspiracy theories | Daily Mail Online

 

[Ian1779]

Here we go again......

Labour candidate Mandy Richards faces fury over conspiracy theories | Daily Mail Online

On the plus side the NEC will reject her application to become a candidate.

 

[Astute]

On the plus side the NEC will reject her application to become a candidate.

But why don't they check who they put forward? Many would be found out before damage is caused.

 

[Ian1779]

But why don't they check who they put forward? Many would be found out before damage is caused.

The selection of Mandy Richards exposes a longterm problem with how Labour vets candidates

So this is where the issue seemingly lies, a process that is in need of addressing, hopefully it is high on the agenda of those responsible.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I'd love to get everyone off this thread into the pub for a drink at the same time.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Corbyn is now talking about abolishing immigration targets.

This is the kind of stuff that puts people off him. I believe immigration is a big concern to the general public.

 

[Ian1779]

Corbyn is now talking about abolishing immigration targets.

This is the kind of stuff that puts people off him. I believe immigration is a big concern to the general public.

You don't have to have a target to become better on immigration. And besides the targets were a fucking joke, when was the last one met?

Immigration is a concern, and there some valid aspects to it - however because of our poisonous media, you can't sift through the xenophobic bullshit in order to see where the legitimate concerns are that need addressing.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You don't have to have a target to become better on immigration. And besides the targets were a fucking joke, when was the last one met?

Immigration is a concern, and there some valid aspects to it - however because of our poisonous media, you can't sift through the xenophobic bullshit in order to see where the legitimate concerns are that need addressing.

If there are no targets it becomes a free-for-all. The general public might not appreciate the silly targets, but they certainly won't take well to having absolutely zero attempt at control.

 

[shmmeee]

That isn’t research - and anti Zionism is actually what Naz Shah believes in - namely the forced repatriation of all Jews out of Israel.

Up for that are you? Getting the trains ready?

That’s not what Naz Shah supports, she’s made that clear and apologised.

That’s also not what anti-Zionism is.

When are we getting an apology from May for her own homophobic views? What about the multitude of bigotry displayed by Tories from activist to cabinet level, will she be apologising for that? Just today a Tory MP was anti-homeless people, will he be kicked out the party?

Of course not. It’s nothing but concern trolling.

 

[clint van damme]

If there are no targets it becomes a free-for-all. The general public might not appreciate the silly targets, but they certainly won't take well to having absolutely zero attempt at control.

not having targets doesn't mean not trying to control immigration.
People may interpret it that way but they'd be wrong.
As Ian said, no government has hit the targets for that long that they have become meaningless.

 

[skybluetony176]

If there are no targets it becomes a free-for-all. The general public might not appreciate the silly targets, but they certainly won't take well to having absolutely zero attempt at control.

You seem to be confusing having an unreachable target with zero control. No one is suggesting changing the laws on immigration, nothing will actually change in the attempt to control immigration there just won’t be a target that’s little more than an imaginary number MP’s drag out for political gain.

They quote targets because people buy into a lie that it actually means that they’ll do something extra to meet this target. It’s a bit like SISU saying they’re going to build a new stadium and then actually not doing anything to make it a reality. Some will fall for it but most will see straight through it as a distraction from failing to run the immigration department effectively.

 

[chiefdave]

Corbyn is now talking about abolishing immigration targets.

I'd much rather have a system we can enforce where who gets to come in depends on our requirements than some ridiculous target plucked out of thin air we have no chance of achieving.

There's a lot of Conservative MPs pushing May to do the same.

Theresa May must drop her target to slash net migration to “the tens of thousands” because it “undermines” the public’s trust in politics, MPs say.

People expect “practical steps” to cut the number of people entering the country, rather than a target that has been missed year-on-year, the Commons Home Affairs Committee warned.

Its report is the latest strong criticism of the immigration goal which the Prime Minister has insisted on keeping, despite growing opposition - including from within her own Cabinet.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

not having targets doesn't mean not trying to control immigration.
People may interpret it that way but they'd be wrong.
As Ian said, no government has hit the targets for that long that they have become meaningless.

You seem to be confusing having an unreachable target with zero control. No one is suggesting changing the laws on immigration, nothing will actually change in the attempt to control immigration there just won’t be a target that’s little more than an imaginary number MP’s drag out for political gain.

They quote targets because people buy into a lie that it actually means that they’ll do something extra to meet this target. It’s a bit like SISU saying they’re going to build a new stadium and then actually not doing anything to make it a reality. Some will fall for it but most will see straight through it as a distraction from failing to run the immigration department effectively.

Guys, if we are going to have a decent debate at least try to be honest.

He doesn't want to scarp immigration quotas because he thinks the Tories are missing them, he wants to scrap them because he doesn't want it to be controlled at all. I'd love to be able to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.

People that are skeptical of voting for him due to thinking he wants to have an open door policy will hardly feel more relaxed when he comes out with stuff like this. There is nothing I have heard which makes me feel better about it I'm afraid. I wish there was, but there isn't.

 

[clint van damme]

Guys, if we are going to have a decent debate at least try to be honest.

He doesn't want to scarp immigration quotas because he thinks the Tories are missing them, he wants to scrap them because he doesn't want it to be controlled at all. I'd love to be able to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.

People that are skeptical of voting for him due to thinking he wants to have an open door policy will hardly feel more relaxed when he comes out with stuff like this. There is nothing I have heard which makes me feel better about it I'm afraid. I wish there was, but there isn't.

why? What have you heard? Or more tellingly, where have you heard it?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I'd much rather have a system we can enforce where who gets to come in depends on our requirements than some ridiculous target plucked out of thin air we have no chance of achieving.

There's a lot of Conservative MPs pushing May to do the same.

See my last post.

There's nothing to really suggest they want to abolish it because it isn't working. It feels a lot more like they want to abolish it because they feel it is too strict and that people were upset with Windrush etc.

I'm more than happy to discuss the pros and cons of an open door policy, but trying to say that this motive isn't to achieve that feels a little patronising.