• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

You are most profoundly wrong about JC.He (quite obviously) doesn't have an anti- semitic bone in his body.

No just his friends eh?

Then you can stop 'exposing' him as its things from the past, when he was a backbencher without the clout to dictate who was on stage before or after him.
As has been stated he used the phrase 'friends' to enable meaningful discussion. The reverse of the policy Cameron uses when he slags off the important names in the EU hierarchy then wonders why they are not falling over themselves to assist him in the tangles he gets himself into.

Every time you bring this up I'll point out why it is not worth bringing up. We can agree to disagree or keep repeating ourselves.


Why would a back bencher with no clout (as you put it), want meaningful discussion with these people?

Who elected him to do this?

Under whose authority did he want meaningful discussion?

You can repeat yourself again if you wish, but these questions wont go away by repeating a answer that doesn't bear scrutiny.

When Ukip were facing this kind of attention you were all over it....
 
No just his friends eh?




Why would a back bencher with no clout (as you put it), want meaningful discussion with these people?

Who elected him to do this?

Under whose authority did he want meaningful discussion?

You can repeat yourself again if you wish, but these questions wont go away by repeating a answer that doesn't bear scrutiny.

When Ukip were facing this kind of attention you were all over it....
His constituents. Parliament is made up of a lot more people than just the PM. All MPs that are not the PM still enter into discussions with other political representatives and gather information and opinions. 'Fact finding' is generally what it comes under. That is why in debates in Parliament you will often hear an MP state 'I was talking to xxx' and then they report information to Parliament.

When UKIP were criticised for the company they were keeping it was for an official alliance with right wing parties in order to gain large scale funding from the EU. By generating extra EU funds for themselves they were generating extra funds for the other parties in their alliance - paid from the trough they accuse MEPs of having their snouts in. Official alliance was the case then with large financial rewards.
 
You are most profoundly wrong about JC.He (quite obviously) doesn't have an anti- semitic bone in his body.

No one is suggesting he has. He, however, doesn't have a problem with people that do. This is an interesting article:

Telegraph

The good news is that at least he has finally deigned to meet with at least one Jewish organisation. The bad news is that when discussing his previous associations with "dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites, including representatives of Hamas and Hizbollah," the author of the article...

...asked Mr Corbyn to at least acknowledge and draw a line under these associations with anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and terrorists, he only committed himself to “reflect further” on such connections.

He has a serious problem, and whilst he's in denial there's no hope he'll resolve it.
 
Then you can stop 'exposing' him as its things from the past, when he was a backbencher without the clout to dictate who was on stage before or after him.
As has been stated he used the phrase 'friends' to enable meaningful discussion. The reverse of the policy Cameron uses when he slags off the important names in the EU hierarchy then wonders why they are not falling over themselves to assist him in the tangles he gets himself into.

Every time you bring this up I'll point out why it is not worth bringing up. We can agree to disagree or keep repeating ourselves.

See my previous post, this is very much in the present because he refuses to do much about it.
 
No one is suggesting he has. He, however, doesn't have a problem with people that do. This is an interesting article:

Telegraph

The good news is that at least he has finally deigned to meet with at least one Jewish organisation. The bad news is that when discussing his previous associations with "dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites, including representatives of Hamas and Hizbollah," the author of the article...



He has a serious problem, and whilst he's in denial there's no hope he'll resolve it.

Notice the article was published on 1st April.Are you sure it wasn't an April Fool's day joke? :unsure:

In any case, I refuse to disable Adblocker for a Torygraph article.
 
Notice the article was published on 1st April.Are you sure it wasn't an April Fool's day joke? :unsure:

In any case, I refuse to disable Adblocker for a Torygraph article.

Here you go then (of course you could have responded to the points I raised in my post, but you chose not to):

Jonathan Arkush, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, has called on the Labour leadership to "exorcise" the party's "antisemitic demons", following a string of incidents within the party.
Earlier this month, Mr Corbyn came under pressure to suspend Vicki Kirby, the vice chair of the Labour's Woking branch, who was promoted despite tweeting that Jews have "big noses" and "slaughter the oppressed".
In the past few days, it has also emerged that Labour councillor and former Lord Mayor of Bradford Khadim Hussain was suspended from the Party after promoting a cartoon on social media bemoaning the emphasis schools place on teaching the Holocaust "and the six million Zionists that were killed."
Writing exclusively for the Telegraph, Mr Arkush says that Jeremy Corbyn is "failing to lead" Labour out of a damaging trend of anti-Semitism that has been an undercurrent in the Left for years.
'How will history remember Corbyn?'
The past few weeks have been very unsettling for British Jews and particularly for the many people in our community who consider themselves to be Labour Party supporters. The image of the party has been damaged by a string of Labour members who have been identified as actively anti-Semitic.
First came the sensational resignation of Alex Chalmers from his position as chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club, citing concerns that a “large proportion” of the club’s members had “some kind of problem with Jews”. Shortly after, Rayhan Uddin, a Labour-supporting student at the London School of Economics, came under fire for a deeply offensive Facebook post in which he wrote that “leading Zionists” wanted to take over the student union.
British opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn waits to give a television interview after speaking to Tata Steel workers CREDIT: AFP
Then we had the spectacle of Labour members exhibiting anti-Semitism on social media. They included the hard-Left activist Gerry Downing, the vice chair for Labour in Woking, Vicki Kirby, Kensington councillor Beinazir Lasharie, Bob Campbell, a Momentum activist in Middlesbrough, and former Bradford Lord Mayor Khadim Hussain. And we doubt that these will be the last.
Vicki Kirby's now-deleted Tweets CREDIT: TWITTER
Sadly, little of this behaviour is a surprise to the Jewish community. We have for some years witnessed an undercurrent of these attitudes and activities, particularly on the Left, from people who should know better.
We have never accused or suspected Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, of anti-Semitism. When the Board of Deputies of British Jews met Mr Corbyn in February, he told our delegation that he opposed anti-Semitism “from any part of the political spectrum”, whether Left or Right.
But when, at our meeting, I highlighted the engagements he had carried out in the past with real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites, including representatives of Hamas and Hizbollah, and asked Mr Corbyn to at least acknowledge and draw a line under these associations with anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and terrorists, heonly committed himself to “reflect further” on such connections. This does not go nearly far enough.
"There is undoubtedly confusion within some parts of Labour about the limits of criticism of Israel or its government"
If Labour is to be credible in exorcising its anti-Semitic demons, its leader must first clearly demonstrate that he understands why these relationships are problematic. To put it another way, if the leader fails to lead, how can he – or we in the Jewish community – expect others to follow?
There is undoubtedly confusion within some parts of Labour about the limits of criticism of Israel or its government. But, while criticism of a government’s policies is one thing, it is completely unacceptable when that spills over into violence, intimidation or hatred.
Failing to oppose terrorism at the Jewish community by the likes of Hamas and Hizbollah; singing a song called Rockets over Tel Aviv; indicating sympathy for the Holocaust, or denying it happened; denying or finding excuses for the problem of contemporary anti-Semitism; indulging in theological anti-Semitism – tying the current problems in the Middle East to prejudices about Jews learnt from the texts or traditions of Christianity or Islam; repeating Jewish conspiracy theories about malevolent Jewish power and control, including the “blood libel” – all of these things should be obviously unacceptable behaviour. But, sadly, they have not been obvious enough to some.
Admittedly there are some actions that may or may not be anti-Semitic depending on the circumstances. Protests against events with Israeli or Jewish speakers; targeted boycotts of, or vandalism against, Israeli or kosher products, and questioning the right of Israel to exist – all of these can create a sense of fear and apprehension among Jews. And so, people engaging in these sorts of activities have to ask themselves whether they are applying a double standard to the Jewish state, and if so, why?
“It is hard to underestimate the damage being done to the Labour Party. I am disturbed by those who have criticised those of us who have spoken out."
Wes Streeting MP
There have been some encouraging signs from Labour, including the speed with which the party expelled or suspended members once their revolting views became widely known. John McDonnell has proposed a lifetime ban for any members exhibiting anti-Semitism. Sadiq Khan has made tackling anti-Semitism a key priority if he is elected London’s mayor on May 5. Chris Bryant is the latest in a series of senior Labour figures to highlight the problem, and John Mann continues to do a sterling job as chairman of the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism.
Mr Corbyn clearly has a challenge here – but he also has an opportunity. He could meet the problems Labour has encountered head-on, by tackling Left-wing and Islamist anti-Semitism with the same clarity as he has opposed Right-wing anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. To do so would be to deal a blow to one of the most pervasive forms of contemporary discrimination. How will history remember him? Only he can decide.
 
There is a clear difference between criticism of Israel's Zionism and anti-semitism as such.

Of course there is (depending on your definition of Zionism, and most people don't even know what it means), but the people he associates with, and is only prepared to "reflect on" not associating with in future have massively crossed that line.
 
Apart from expelling those concerned.

After having readmitted them and been called out by Camerscum. He also decided only to "reflect" on not associating with extremists in future, i.e. he can't actually decide not to. This puts to bed your argument that he only did it as a back bencher since he is therefore happy to consider sharing a platform with various extremists in the future.
 
After having readmitted them and been called out by Camerscum. He also decided only to "reflect" on not associating with extremists in future, i.e. he can't actually decide not to. This puts to bed your argument that he only did it as a back bencher since he is therefore happy to consider sharing a platform with various extremists in the future.


I have to say AAS's insistence that Corbyn was merely there, and hadn't checked who else was... is barely believable but absolutely untrue when you consider that he even went as far as inviting one for tea at the commons.
 
After having readmitted them and been called out by Camerscum. He also decided only to "reflect" on not associating with extremists in future, i.e. he can't actually decide not to. This puts to bed your argument that he only did it as a back bencher since he is therefore happy to consider sharing a platform with various extremists in the future.
something like 150,000 new members over just a few months, among that volume will be a few wrong uns. Due to this there have been expulsions.
Maybe his answer was influenced by how the question was worded or who asked it. Or maybe by the fact he does advocate discussion and negotiation and he doesn't want to promise something and then find in the future that makes him seem like a hypocrite for debating with 'unsavoury characters'.

this is coming under a lot of scrutiny here when by expulsions have been made - which is the result that we would have wanted and expected
 
something like 150,000 new members over just a few months, among that volume will be a few wrong uns. Due to this there have been expulsions.
Maybe his answer was influenced by how the question was worded or who asked it. Or maybe by the fact he does advocate discussion and negotiation and he doesn't want to promise something and then find in the future that makes him seem like a hypocrite for debating with 'unsavoury characters'.

this is coming under a lot of scrutiny here when by expulsions have been made - which is the result that we would have wanted and expected

You seem to be mixing up two issues.

One issue is that he is happy to re-admit previously expelled members of the Labour Party, and only re-expel them when Camerscum calls him out. (These people are not new members.)

The other issue is the people he has shared a platform with in the past, i.e. people who are members of extreme organisations. This is the one I was talking about. He will only "reflect on" not associating with these people in the future, even though he knows who they are, their views, and the lies they peddle.
 
I have to say AAS's insistence that Corbyn was merely there, and hadn't checked who else was... is barely believable but absolutely untrue when you consider that he even went as far as inviting one for tea at the commons.

Corbyn has a pacifist start point in foreign affairs. Not one that I advocate myself but due to that his mindset and the fact that Israel bombs Palestine using weapons funded by the USA it is not surprising that he has met and had discussions with Palestinian organisations. Palestine also bombs Israel as we know as they have been at war for years. Due to the nature of the war some Palestinians will be anti Semitic - that is fairly inevitable. That doesn't mean Corbyn will shun all contact with them - the set up in the ME is too complex and important to be overlooked because of something that is a fairly inevitable consequence of two nations being at war - they will hate each other.


The quotes in this article state that anti Semitic views are not views that Corbyn holds.


The article names 5 people in the Labour Party that hold these views and they have been expelled.


The article says the problem 'may' be more widespread. If it is then those involved will have seen the results - expulsion.
 
Originally Posted by Tangled Up In Blue.There is a clear difference between criticism of Israel's Zionism and anti-semitism as such.


Of course there is (depending on your definition of Zionism, and most people don't even know what it means), but the people he associates with, and is only prepared to "reflect on" not associating with in future have massively crossed that line.

One form is acceptable and one isn't? Is that what you are saying.

What I'm saying is, that anti-semitism is never acceptable, while criticism of Israel's Zionism often is.
 
Corbyn has a pacifist start point in foreign affairs. Not one that I advocate myself but due to that his mindset and the fact that Israel bombs Palestine using weapons funded by the USA it is not surprising that he has met and had discussions with Palestinian organisations. Palestine also bombs Israel as we know as they have been at war for years. Due to the nature of the war some Palestinians will be anti Semitic - that is fairly inevitable. That doesn't mean Corbyn will shun all contact with them - the set up in the ME is too complex and important to be overlooked because of something that is a fairly inevitable consequence of two nations being at war - they will hate each other.


The quotes in this article state that anti Semitic views are not views that Corbyn holds.


The article names 5 people in the Labour Party that hold these views and they have been expelled.


The article says the problem 'may' be more widespread. If it is then those involved will have seen the results - expulsion.

I think you need to stop before you get started. Read the Gaza thread. There's also a difference between meeting with Palestinians and meeting and sharing a platform with terrorists that hold and peddle lies about jews in general. You seem to be muddying the water.
 
What I'm saying is, that anti-semitism is never acceptable, while criticism of Israel's Zionism often is.

So why does the leader of the Labour party give mixed messages? He'll say that himself, but when it comes to it, and he is asked not to associate with people that hold racist views, he'll only "reflect" on it.

You also seem to be misunderstanding (or at least expanding) the definition of Zionism, but that's a different argument.
 
I think you need to stop before you get started. Read the Gaza thread. There's also a difference between meeting with Palestinians and meeting and sharing a platform with terrorists that hold and peddle lies about jews in general. You seem to be muddying the water.
It's not muddying waters, a couple of people are asking why he has met certain people.
I have said a few times that I am happy to agree to disagree but if it keeps being brought up on here then I will keep stating the opposite opinion. I'm happy for us all to move on to something else.
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top