Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[londonblue]

what actions have taken part in that make me a racist?

I didn't say that, I said your actions against racism don't square with what you're written above, which seem to not recognise how anti-Semitic that idiot KL is. I'll remind you of what you wrote:

he hasn't said something racist or homophobic

So explain how your anti racism actions square not recognising racism?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You need to educate yourself. Either you don't consider anti-semitism a form of racism (which explains why the Labour party have such a blind spot) or you don't consider what he said anti-Semitic (which also explains why the party have such a blind spot).

You obviously need to read that article I shared a link to.

I read the article.Thanks for the link.:thumbsup:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I didn't say that, I said your actions against racism don't square with what you're written above, which seem to not recognise how anti-Semitic that idiot KL is. I'll remind you of what you wrote:



So explain how your anti racism actions square not recognising racism?

that was in reply to Rigsby's post and my reply was in the context of his question so feel free to take that up with him as it was his wording.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Private education is a choice and an opportunity. Some parents want to provide it for their children and others don't. Those that do should not be penalised as if they are doing something wrong.

Some kids go to summer soccer schools. How elitist is that? Whats wrong with the park and jumpers for goalposts? Perhaps we should put a new tax on soccer schools to provide more money for those who lack such opportunities?

This is something that really should have been addressed in Labour's last period of government.

There's no need to abolish private education as such .All you'd need to do is abolish the charitable tax status. that all private schools enjoy.

That would abolish the vast majority of them at a stroke.

 

[rigsby]

This is something that really should have been addressed in Labour's last period of government.

There's no need to abolish private education as such .All you'd need to do is abolish the charitable tax status. that all private schools enjoy.

That would abolish the vast majority of them at a stroke.

Ah, the old politics of hate and envy against the people who have worked harder than you.

Makes you sound like an old Marxist has been. Someone like, lets say.....Ken Livingstone. Perhaps you should join him in a vow of silence. Sadly its people like you who ruin the Labour party....every time you speak or type you push Labour further than ever from power.

 

[londonblue]

that was in reply to Rigsby's post and my reply was in the context of his question so feel free to take that up with him as it was his wording.

I dont care who it was in response to. I'm asking to justify what YOU typed. You obviously can't.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Ah, the old politics of hate and envy against the people who have worked harder than you.

Makes you sound like an old Marxist has been. Someone like, lets say.....Ken Livingstone. Perhaps you should join him in a vow of silence. Sadly its people like you who ruin the Labour party....every time you speak or type you push Labour further than ever from power.

Good morning.

Never had any time for the politics of hate or envy myself.

Rather,as someone who spent a few years at a (minor) private school and most of my professional life in education, I believe I know what I'm talking about.

I'm quite happy to be described as an "old Marxist" but I'd say I'm more of a "never was" than a "has been".:smile:

As far as Labour is concerned, I haven't been a member for a considerable time now.

Ken's a bit like you, in that he likes to read history in his spare time.That can have unfortunate consequences.:winking:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I dont care who it was in response to. I'm asking to justify what YOU typed. You obviously can't.

I must say its ****ing annoying how you keep trying to catch people out, but if that is how you want to communicate that is up to you.

The question was asked as a theoretical change of circumstances so it was answered on those terms. You didn't set the terms of the question, so the answer was not under your terms.

If you really want to go over this yet again lets do that.

Livingstone has a long history of anti racist work - that is the overall background.
He has been criticised for saying that Hitler made a deal with Zionists to remove Jews from Germany - this is a historical fact. The way he put that information across was ill-advised and impolite. Historically - what came after was something so horrific and significant in world history that this short lived agreement isn't something that needs referencing - so for him to do that was foolish. Foolish, but not racist. He went on to say that Hitler then went mad and murdered 6 million Jews (again, not the terminology I would have chosen)- so in the few places I have seen Livingstone's comments likened to Irving's - there is no comparison - but because this has got so far out of hand that is the level of **** some people are discussing this at.

So - you and I have very different expectations. I do not see criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. I do not see referencing historical facts as anti-Semitic. But when being discussed both of these things should be discussed using considered language. This is what Livingstone has failed to do because he is a gobshite - and that is why he was charged with bringing the party into disrepute. For me John Mann brought the party into disrepute also for his 'you Nazi apologist' rant. Anyone who uses this for political gain is no better. You can't criticise someone for giving airtime to a part of history that doesn't benefit from discussion - and then keep highlighting it yourself - that is self-defeating, or you have another agenda that trumps the original concern.

I have invested time, money, emotion into anti-racist causes. I have risked my own personal safety a number of times and once I took a truncheon to the head for anti-racist causes. So I will fight it every time I see it - but not every time you see it as you don't see things the way I do. That is all there is to it.

 

[londonblue]

I must say its ****ing annoying how you keep trying to catch people out, but if that is how you want to communicate that is up to you.

The question was asked as a theoretical change of circumstances so it was answered on those terms. You didn't set the terms of the question, so the answer was not under your terms.

If you really want to go over this yet again lets do that.

Livingstone has a long history of anti racist work - that is the overall background.
He has been criticised for saying that Hitler made a deal with Zionists to remove Jews from Germany - this is a historical fact. The way he put that information across was ill-advised and impolite. Historically - what came after was something so horrific and significant in world history that this short lived agreement isn't something that needs referencing - so for him to do that was foolish. Foolish, but not racist. He went on to say that Hitler then went mad and murdered 6 million Jews (again, not the terminology I would have chosen)- so in the few places I have seen Livingstone's comments likened to Irving's - there is no comparison - but because this has got so far out of hand that is the level of **** some people are discussing this at.

So - you and I have very different expectations. I do not see criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. I do not see referencing historical facts as anti-Semitic. But when being discussed both of these things should be discussed using considered language. This is what Livingstone has failed to do because he is a gobshite - and that is why he was charged with bringing the party into disrepute. For me John Mann brought the party into disrepute also for his 'you Nazi apologist' rant. Anyone who uses this for political gain is no better. You can't criticise someone for giving airtime to a part of history that doesn't benefit from discussion - and then keep highlighting it yourself - that is self-defeating, or you have another agenda that trumps the original concern.

I have invested time, money, emotion into anti-racist causes. I have risked my own personal safety a number of times and once I took a truncheon to the head for anti-racist causes. So I will fight it every time I see it - but not every time you see it as you don't see things the way I do. That is all there is to it.

It's not fact. It's breathtakingly ignorant.

Read that article I linked. It will explain how wrong and offensive the idiot is being.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It's not fact. It's breathtakingly ignorant.

Read that article I linked. It will explain how wrong and offensive the idiot is being.

Once I found out what article you had linked I realised I had already read it.
Everyone has agreed that the way he put the information across was offensive.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's not fact. It's breathtakingly ignorant.

Read that article I linked. It will explain how wrong and offensive the idiot is being.

As I said above,I've rad it too.Here's another article you might want to consider from today's Observer:-

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...key-unite-leader-contest-corbyn-conservatives

Thought the most interesting quote in it was this:-

"McCluskey describes Livingstone’s outburst as “extraordinary” and supports the way Corbyn dealt with it by asking the party’s ruling national executive to review it. But with regard to antisemitism in the Labour party, McCluskey said he has been a member of the party for 45 years and never experienced any form of antisemitism."

That rather chimes with my (somewhat lesser years of) membership too.

FWIW,I also agree with his 2020 forceast here:-"But I don’t think the Tories will win the next election. They might be the largest party but I don’t think they will be able to form a government. And I do see a prospect of a Labour government, not in coalition, but with a Queen’s speech that is supported by the SNP and Liberal Democrats and obviously what negotiations go on at the time would be down to the Labour party.”

 

[rigsby]

Good morning.

Never had any time for the politics of hate or envy myself.

Rather,as someone who spent a few years at a (minor) private school and most of my professional life in education, I believe I know what I'm talking about.

I'm quite happy to be described as an "old Marxist" but I'd say I'm more of a "never was" than a "has been".:smile:

As far as Labour is concerned, I haven't been a member for a considerable time now.



Ken's a bit like you, in that he likes to read history in his spare time.That can have unfortunate consequences.:winking:

I think it would be best left to others to reply to this statement. But for me its a case of :stunned: :blush: :hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: :'(

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

As I said above,I've rad it too.Here's another article you might want to consider from today's Observer:-

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...key-unite-leader-contest-corbyn-conservatives

Thought the most interesting quote in it was this:-

"McCluskey describes Livingstone’s outburst as “extraordinary” and supports the way Corbyn dealt with it by asking the party’s ruling national executive to review it. But with regard to antisemitism in the Labour party, McCluskey said he has been a member of the party for 45 years and never experienced any form of antisemitism."

That rather chimes with my (somewhat lesser years of) membership too.

FWIW,I also agree with his 2020 forceast here:-"But I don’t think the Tories will win the next election. They might be the largest party but I don’t think they will be able to form a government. And I do see a prospect of a Labour government, not in coalition, but with a Queen’s speech that is supported by the SNP and Liberal Democrats and obviously what negotiations go on at the time would be down to the Labour party.”

I actually thought your George Benard Shaw quote fit the current discussion rather well!

"It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him."

 

[londonblue]

As I said above,I've rad it too.Here's another article you might want to consider from today's Observer:-

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...key-unite-leader-contest-corbyn-conservatives

Thought the most interesting quote in it was this:-

"McCluskey describes Livingstone’s outburst as “extraordinary” and supports the way Corbyn dealt with it by asking the party’s ruling national executive to review it. But with regard to antisemitism in the Labour party, McCluskey said he has been a member of the party for 45 years and never experienced any form of antisemitism."

That rather chimes with my (somewhat lesser years of) membership too.

FWIW,I also agree with his 2020 forceast here:-"But I don’t think the Tories will win the next election. They might be the largest party but I don’t think they will be able to form a government. And I do see a prospect of a Labour government, not in coalition, but with a Queen’s speech that is supported by the SNP and Liberal Democrats and obviously what negotiations go on at the time would be down to the Labour party.”

I'd be very surprised if anyone who's not Jewish has ever experienced anti semitism, unless (like me) they happen to have been in the company of someone Jewish of course. As far as I'm aware McClusky isn't Jewish.

That said, the point he raises is interesting because I would imagine most labour members would say the same, and that is what is so upsetting about Corduroy's tenure: his apologist attitude, and associations with groups that are anti semitic has alowed this latent issue to surface. As David Badiel said about the idiot KL: people like him embolden other anti semites, especially as his view is a revision of history David Irving would be proud of.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'd be very surprised if anyone who's not Jewish has ever experienced anti semitism, unless (like me) they happen to have been in the company of someone Jewish of course. As far as I'm aware McClusky isn't Jewish.

That said, the point he raises is interesting because I would imagine most labour members would say the same, and that is what is so upsetting about Corduroy's tenure: his apologist attitude, and associations with groups that are anti semitic has alowed this latent issue to surface. As David Badiel said about the idiot KL: people like him embolden other anti semites, especially as his view is a revision of history David Irving would be proud of.

Odd that I stated how wrong it was that some people had referenced Irving - and then you go on to do that very thing. I don't recall you mentioning him before.
Irving is a notorious Holocaust denier whereas in the Livingstone quote that has triggered all of this he states that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews - ie he says the exact opposite of what Irving is famous for saying.

 

[londonblue]

Odd that I stated how wrong it was that some people had referenced Irving - and then you go on to do that very thing. I don't recall you mentioning him before.
Irving is a notorious Holocaust denier whereas in the Livingstone quote that has triggered all of this he states that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews - ie he says the exact opposite of what Irving is famous for saying.

Exactly. His views are a-kin to someone you and I both consider to be abhorrent.

This is a good article:

Read this

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Exactly. His views are a-kin to someone you and I both consider to be abhorrent.

This is a good article:

Read this

he said the exact opposite of what Irving says.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I actually thought your George Benard Shaw quote fit the current discussion rather well!

"It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him."

Ha! I've always liked the quote but I think I'll be changing it back to the James Baldwin one soon.:thumbsup:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'd be very surprised if anyone who's not Jewish has ever experienced anti semitism, unless (like me) they happen to have been in the company of someone Jewish of course. As far as I'm aware McClusky isn't Jewish.

That said, the point he raises is interesting because I would imagine most labour members would say the same, and that is what is so upsetting about Corduroy's tenure: his apologist attitude, and associations with groups that are anti semitic has alowed this latent issue to surface. As David Badiel said about the idiot KL: people like him embolden other anti semites, especially as his view is a revision of history David Irving would be proud of.

Don't think Len is Jewish either but I'm happy to accept his comments on the lack of anti-semitism in the Labour party at face value.

Saw DB on C4 News last night,basically giving a re-run of his Guardian article.He seemed a bit confused about what should be done about KL when asked.

 

[londonblue]

he said the exact opposite of what Irving says.

About the Holocaust, yes. But Irving would be proud of anyone that can misinterpret a single event in history and turn it against the Jewish victims.