Keir Starmer


McDonnell claiming that antisemitism was weaponised now. Whether it was or wasn't, probably not the best time to bring it up in the wake of a report that found significant antisemitism within the party.

Time for him to be ousted from the party too?
 
BobKowalski said:
Then you need to shut up about it because frankly that isn’t the sentiment I get from reading your posts. The message I get is ‘I am totally opposed to anti-semitism, but...’

All I hear is the ‘but’. All I hear is that in this instance there is an exception, an excuse, a reason why it is not as it seems and it just all sounds a little ‘off’ to me. I don‘t doubt your sincerity, I really don’t, but that’s the message, the impression I get.
Click to expand...
You get the difficulty then I see. I am opposed to all forms of discrimination, but there is a but. That is there because it is not clear and the report says as much. It does identify antisemitism and only a fool would deny that it existed, and again, but it also indicates other things too. It does indicate that antisemitism was over stated, and again but, they only investigated a smallish number of cases. So there are buts both ways. The report couldnt feasibly identify every case of antisemitism, and again but, where some of the cases that originated from the CAA even worthy of consideration such was the flimsiness and paucity of concrete evidence, and again but, that does not mean they were not cases of antisemitism, it means they weren't investigated. And again, but where these cases hidden or interfered with by LOTO because Livingstons was but not hidden, it was put to the front of the queue to be investigated, and again but, the report says there should not be political interference, and again but the political interference was correct and Livingstone got quite rightly censured for his actions.

Its a whole can of worms and a thousand buts, because as you have just proven yourself with your but regarding Starmer. Yet again but, Starmer made an immediate mockery of the report by politically interfering and suspending Corbyn, but Corbyn due to his political interference is quite rightly censored and removed from the party, But Starmer remains in the party having done exactly what Corbyn did. But again Starmer to my knowledge has not been involved with antisemitism.

And no, I will not shut up, I wont shut up until antisemitism has been eradicated and those who promulgated it are quite rightly held accountable, and I will not shut up until those who have been accused of antisemitism and have not been antisemitic are exonerated. Because if we don't then every body stands accused and the real perpetrators get away with it and the whole exercise is pointless because antisemitism will still exist.
 
BobKowalski said:
Then you need to shut up about it because frankly that isn’t the sentiment I get from reading your posts. The message I get is ‘I am totally opposed to anti-semitism, but...’

All I hear is the ‘but’. All I hear is that in this instance there is an exception, an excuse, a reason why it is not as it seems and it just all sounds a little ‘off’ to me. I don‘t doubt your sincerity, I really don’t, but that’s the message, the impression I get.
Click to expand...
The world would indeed be a much simpler place if everyone who says anything disagreeable was made to shut up as you suggest. It would be a very quiet place too.
 
Rascal said:
You get the difficulty then I see. I am opposed to all forms of discrimination, but there is a but. That is there because it is not clear and the report says as much. It does identify antisemitism and only a fool would deny that it existed, and again, but it also indicates other things too. It does indicate that antisemitism was over stated, and again but, they only investigated a smallish number of cases. So there are buts both ways. The report couldnt feasibly identify every case of antisemitism, and again but, where some of the cases that originated from the CAA even worthy of consideration such was the flimsiness and paucity of concrete evidence, and again but, that does not mean they were not cases of antisemitism, it means they weren't investigated. And again, but where these cases hidden or interfered with by LOTO because Livingstons was but not hidden, it was put to the front of the queue to be investigated, and again but, the report says there should not be political interference, and again but the political interference was correct and Livingstone got quite rightly censured for his actions.

Its a whole can of worms and a thousand buts, because as you have just proven yourself with your but regarding Starmer. Yet again but, Starmer made an immediate mockery of the report by politically interfering and suspending Corbyn, but Corbyn due to his political interference is quite rightly censored and removed from the party, But Starmer remains in the party having done exactly what Corbyn did. But again Starmer to my knowledge has not been involved with antisemitism.

And no, I will not shut up, I wont shut up until antisemitism has been eradicated and those who promulgated it are quite rightly held accountable, and I will not shut up until those who have been accused of antisemitism and have not been antisemitic are exonerated. Because if we don't then every body stands accused and the real perpetrators get away with it and the whole exercise is pointless because antisemitism will still exist.
Click to expand...

For the TL/DR types, are you suggesting that you are opposed to the discrimination of Jews and also the discrimination of those falsely accused of doing so?
 
BobKowalski said:
Then you need to shut up about it because frankly that isn’t the sentiment I get from reading your posts. The message I get is ‘I am totally opposed to anti-semitism, but...’

All I hear is the ‘but’. All I hear is that in this instance there is an exception, an excuse, a reason why it is not as it seems and it just all sounds a little ‘off’ to me. I don‘t doubt your sincerity, I really don’t, but that’s the message, the impression I get.
Click to expand...

Poor Rascal, poor me, we're both useful idiots, racist enablers at best, apologists at worst.
 
Rascal said:
You get the difficulty then I see. I am opposed to all forms of discrimination, but there is a but. That is there because it is not clear and the report says as much. It does identify antisemitism and only a fool would deny that it existed, and again, but it also indicates other things too. It does indicate that antisemitism was over stated, and again but, they only investigated a smallish number of cases. So there are buts both ways. The report couldnt feasibly identify every case of antisemitism, and again but, where some of the cases that originated from the CAA even worthy of consideration such was the flimsiness and paucity of concrete evidence, and again but, that does not mean they were not cases of antisemitism, it means they weren't investigated. And again, but where these cases hidden or interfered with by LOTO because Livingstons was but not hidden, it was put to the front of the queue to be investigated, and again but, the report says there should not be political interference, and again but the political interference was correct and Livingstone got quite rightly censured for his actions.

Its a whole can of worms and a thousand buts, because as you have just proven yourself with your but regarding Starmer. Yet again but, Starmer made an immediate mockery of the report by politically interfering and suspending Corbyn, but Corbyn due to his political interference is quite rightly censored and removed from the party, But Starmer remains in the party having done exactly what Corbyn did. But again Starmer to my knowledge has not been involved with antisemitism.

And no, I will not shut up, I wont shut up until antisemitism has been eradicated and those who promulgated it are quite rightly held accountable, and I will not shut up until those who have been accused of antisemitism and have not been antisemitic are exonerated. Because if we don't then every body stands accused and the real perpetrators get away with it and the whole exercise is pointless because antisemitism will still exist.
Click to expand...

Several points. The first is Corbyn’s statement, which was a mewling whine about how badly he has been treated and second that his statement alone was enough to tell me that at the very least he didn’t understand the issue of anti-semitism and at the worst he is anti-semitic.

As for not weaponising ‘anti-semitism’, what do you think Corbyn or McDonnell are doing right now but weaponising the issue against their ‘political opponents’?

Corbyn got booted out for being a colossal dick, which to be fair he has been from day 1 on the issue. He was also looking to get booted out, so let’s not get all ‘outraged’ over his suspension.
 
BobKowalski said:
Several points. The first is Corbyn’s statement, which was a mewling whine about how badly he has been treated and second that his statement alone was enough to tell me that at the very least he didn’t understand the issue of anti-semitism and at the worst he is anti-semitic.

As for not weaponising ‘anti-semitism’, what do you think Corbyn or McDonnell are doing right now but weaponising the issue against their ‘political opponents’?

Corbyn got booted out for being a colossal dick, which to be fair he has been from day 1 on the issue. He was also looking to get booted out, so let’s not get all ‘outraged’ over his suspension.
Click to expand...
Do you actually know what he has been 'booted out' (suspended) for?
 
The perfect fumble said:
media
Click to expand...

That last fuck is going to last a long, long time judging by the size of the candle. I’d have gone with the same message on the side of a blazing dumpster.
 
BobKowalski said:
Article in the Guardian on the issue. I highlighted the bit which was my first thought when I read Corbyn’s statement.

‘It was Mr Corbyn’s decision to make what should have been a turning point for the better for Labour into another argument about himself’

www.theguardian.com

Mr Corbyn’s shameless self-pity betrays the victims of the antisemitism scandal | Andrew Rawnsley

The EHRC report was unequivocally damning of his leadership, but he still can’t accept any responsibility
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I'm not sure refusing to accept all the findings of a report has ever been an offence? Refusing to abide by its recommendations may before problematic granted. Starmer has done a deal with the devil in his relationship with the CAA. Their list of those to be dealt with will never grow shorter and nothing will ever be enough. It's pure Stalinist / Maccarthyism witch hunting now as it appears Starmer and Rayner will soon realise. Any virtue taken to extremes becomes an extreme.
 
BobKowalski said:
That last fuck is going to last a long, long time judging by the size of the candle. I’d have gone with the same message on the side of a blazing dumpster.
Click to expand...

I deleted that post, I've no wish to get in to an argument with you. You have your opinion and regardless of its veracity it has the power of the right behind it, so it will prevail.
 
Corbyn should have a huge statue erected for people to fling shit at forever.

Irrespective of his treatment if Labour party members, if not for that **** & his cult, there would be no Johnson, Gove & this useless incompetent, evil shower of cunts would just be nobodies in a divided opposition.

Corbyn would take a pistol into a darkened room if he had any decency.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I'm not sure refusing to accept all the findings of a report has ever been an offence? Refusing to abide by its recommendations may before problematic granted. Starmer has done a deal with the devil in his relationship with the CAA. Their list of those to be dealt with will never grow shorter and nothing will ever be enough. It's pure Stalinist / Maccarthyism witch hunting now as it appears Starmer and Rayner will soon realise. Any virtue taken to extremes becomes an extreme.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I said, politics isn’t for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top