Britain's Next Top Prime Minister - Labour Leadership Election 2020.

[sadoldgit]

Corbyn handled anti semitism investigations horrendously. That would still have been the case whatever the press reported. Senior Jewish Labour figures would still have been heavily critical of him personally, the human rights commission would still have been investigating Labour. Corbyn would still have been viewed negatively by the public for his associations with various terrorist organisations and many within the electorate would still have been suspicious that he actually had a very low opinion of the UK and did a lot of consortobg with the wrong sort of people. Most of the public would have come to these conclusions even if they had been presented in an entirely factual manner and you even said yourself he couldn't even pretend to be patriotic so even if the press had just released video footage of him looking scruffy, not singing and his negative views of the monarchy etc they would have come to those conclusions anyway.

 

He did handle it badly. But he did handle it. Johnson handled Islamophobia badly in his party and still doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it. Corbyn gets wrongly labelled as an anti-Semite. Johnson gets away Scot free. There are also claims of anti-semitismin the Tory party but non of it stick because the media have spent their time slinging the mud at Corbyn. People will come to their views come what may, but when you get a constant drip feed of negativity that negativity builds and becomes “truth” not an opinion. I Sm sure I don’t have to tell you about Nazis and the Big Lie. Trump uses it daily to great effect.

[aintforever]

Well in that case I couldn't disagree more strongly. I don't consider the majority of the public to be mindless robots. There has always been a lot to dislike about Corbyn including some of the people who follow him. The press didn't exactly have to try hard to be critical of his Iran and Russia links, his wreath laying exploits, his statements after Salisbury, his slowness to react on antisemitism, his candidness about never using the nuclear deterrent etc. The British public didn't need the fading British press to tell them that they didn't want corbyn in charge of the country.

 

What are Corbyn's Russian links then?

[hypochondriac]

What are Corbyn's Russian links then?

 

The fact he used hacked NHS documents from Russians for his election campaign. I do accept that's a claim he denies though so I'm happy for you to exclude Russian links if you want and replace it with IRA. Regardless do you disagree with the rest of it?

[aintforever]

The fact he used hacked NHS documents from Russians for his election campaign. I do accept that's a claim he denies though so I'm happy for you to exclude Russian links if you want and replace it with IRA. Regardless do you disagree with the rest of it?

 

LOL you are proving our point perfectly.

 

You perceived Corbyn as having Russian links because of what you have read/seen in the media yet Boris' chief advisor lived and worked in Russia for years, Boris has Russian links himself and has suppressed a report into Russian interference in our democracy.

[sadoldgit]

He wasn’t the only politician with IRA links. We have done this before and it was done in an effort to get a peace treaty, which we now have. In previous threads we have discussed politicians sitting down and talking to “terrorists” ( remember one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter).

 

What is interesting is the way you roll of the negative points about Corbyn with ease. There are just as many with Johnson but you don’t mention those. It’s a bit like the days with Cortese. He might be a c*** but he is our c***. It proves the point about the Tory press and the camaign to smear Labour leaders (which has already started with the prospective candidates). It is a double edged sword. Not only do the smears lessen the chance of people voting for them, they also distract from the negativity of their own preferred PM.

[Sheaf Saint]

The fact he used hacked NHS documents from Russians for his election campaign. I do accept that's a claim he denies though so I'm happy for you to exclude Russian links if you want and replace it with IRA. Regardless do you disagree with the rest of it?

 

I thought that's what you were getting at, and it just proves SOG's point completely. The Russia link to the leaked NHS documents is completely unfounded, coming from a single source - a bloke on Reddit who thought the tactics looked similar, and was reported as fact by every one of the Tory-leaning press that SOG listed previously as a distraction from the real issue.

 

And lo and behold, you fell for it completely and repeated it as "Corbyn's Russia links".

 

I'm not going to disagree with much of what you posted, as Corbyn did have some very poor optics without the need for press intervention. But this in itself clearly shows that, despite the fact you can't see it yourself, your pre-existing negative view of Corbyn was heavily reinforced by a relentless, disingenuous media campaign against him.

 

Edit: And all the while, the new PM has been literally in the pockets of Russian oligarchs (including the owner of The Independent), yet the right wing press completely airbrush this fact out of the narrative while falsely demonising Corbyn for the same 'crime'.

Edited 9 January, 2020 by Sheaf Saint

[hypochondriac]

LOL you are proving our point perfectly.

No I'm not. Is it not the case that the leaked NHS trade talks were released on reddit by Russian hackers and is it true that Corbyn refused to say where he got them from?

 

You perceived Corbyn as having Russian links because of what you have read/seen in the media

 

I perceived Corbyn as using sources from Russia to his advantage because Reddit said they believed the leak to come from Russia and Corbyn refused to say where else he had got it from if not there. Nothing to do with the media.

 

yet Boris' chief advisor lived and worked in Russia for years, Boris has Russian links himself and has suppressed a report into Russian interference in our democracy.

 

Whatabboutery again that has nothing to do with claims that right wing media bias against Corbyn prevented him from winning the election.

 

As I said, feel free to use IRA links instead, the point that you've missed is that presented with this facts, many of the British public would feel uneasy about voting for Corbyn as leader of the country even if they were presented in a simply factual manner.

[hypochondriac]

He wasn’t the only politician with IRA links. We have done this before and it was done in an effort to get a peace treaty, which we now have. In previous threads we have discussed politicians sitting down and talking to “terrorists” ( remember one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter).

 

What is interesting is the way you roll of the negative points about Corbyn with ease. There are just as many with Johnson but you don’t mention those. It’s a bit like the days with Cortese. He might be a c*** but he is our c***. It proves the point about the Tory press and the camaign to smear Labour leaders (which has already started with the prospective candidates). It is a double edged sword. Not only do the smears lessen the chance of people voting for them, they also distract from the negativity of their own preferred PM.

 

Why are you getting into the minutiae of Corbyn and the many varied facets of his character and his actions that mean people find him unpopular? Why you feel the desire to rerun the election campaign I have no idea. Your claim was that Corbyn lost the election because of right wing media bias influencing the public. My claim was that even if the media had been entirely neutral, there are enough negatives about Corbyn and his associations which mean that people would be much more uneasy about voting for him than Johnson. I'm very confident that is the case but I accept it's impossible to prove definitively.

[hypochondriac]

I thought that's what you were getting at, and it just proves SOG's point completely. The Russia link to the leaked NHS documents is completely unfounded, coming from a single source - a bloke on Reddit who thought the tactics looked similar, and was reported as fact by every one of the Tory-leaning press that SOG listed previously as a distraction from the real issue.

 

And lo and behold, you fell for it completely and repeated it as "Corbyn's Russia links".

 

I'm not going to disagree with much of what you posted, as Corbyn did have some very poor optics without the need for press intervention. But this in itself clearly shows that, despite the fact you can't see it yourself, your pre-existing negative view of Corbyn was heavily reinforced by a relentless, disingenuous media campaign against him.

 

Edit: And all the while, the new PM has been literally in the pockets of Russian oligarchs (including the owner of The Independent), yet the right wing press completely airbrush this fact out of the narrative while falsely demonising Corbyn for the same 'crime'.

 

Corbyn has a history of meetings and sharing platforms with characters who largely despise the UK and at best have some very dodgy views- FACT

 

Corbyn was a largely uninspiring speaker, did not look Prime Ministerial and did not appear to be particularly patriotic- FACT

 

Corbyn was criticised by many Jewish Labour members and MPs for the way he handled anti-semitism allegations. The party have handled this so poorly that the Human Rights commission has felt it necessary to open an investigation into them- FACT

 

I could go on but the point is that these things on their own are more than enough for people to form a negative opinion- warranted or not- of the man and not want him as Prime Minister, no negative media portrayals required.

[hypochondriac]

And not that it matters, but it wasn't a single person on reddit, it was a statement released on behalf of the moderation team who spoke about the systems they have in place that have been developed over a number of years to identify and catch coordinated behaviour.

[Sheaf Saint]

The "evidence" for the NHS leak coming from Russia...

 

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/07/reddit-bans-users-for-telling-the-truth/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=e128711fa585c24eee907ae81efe86dcf8c7c8e8-1578584922-0-AYuOfUW4-eWJfFF4qlYQ1sCEE7a0BKwBOI4ZDvrwL57uBoZWy8QcSS6qSZMtECJflVVmikOPrTf-eQOU-s7Rdvu59nrzh5kmba-XU8hREVuzxkkI5WVr4DSxB0lWTSXW2IpAUS-Uhe2pzdMPdjfolc_KDtgWjmz1ooCKx9VhJQEbPFZYc8SKsr0BhagjmYMdqi7g48kgJyLcEQO4gq3HA9Ypd3DNHE16MlXXS3nI-bB6QlkIaW_CavZaxY91OuU6WntBokqEikTNIUj1SJHvbbXfhDrhUqdvaITEQeU_muJ2tFX41j4pNX1uFBONnHxcuifIRcmnDTkgnRbAj03-rXE

 

The suggestion of Russian involvement was planted in the public domain by someone who works for an FCO-funded NGO. And all of the usual suspect media outlets reported it as fact, knowing full well that large numbers of people would unwittingly succumb to their confirmation bias and believe it, because it fits with their existing narrative. Including you Hypo.

[hypochondriac]

The "evidence" for the NHS leak coming from Russia...

 

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/07/reddit-bans-users-for-telling-the-truth/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=e128711fa585c24eee907ae81efe86dcf8c7c8e8-1578584922-0-AYuOfUW4-eWJfFF4qlYQ1sCEE7a0BKwBOI4ZDvrwL57uBoZWy8QcSS6qSZMtECJflVVmikOPrTf-eQOU-s7Rdvu59nrzh5kmba-XU8hREVuzxkkI5WVr4DSxB0lWTSXW2IpAUS-Uhe2pzdMPdjfolc_KDtgWjmz1ooCKx9VhJQEbPFZYc8SKsr0BhagjmYMdqi7g48kgJyLcEQO4gq3HA9Ypd3DNHE16MlXXS3nI-bB6QlkIaW_CavZaxY91OuU6WntBokqEikTNIUj1SJHvbbXfhDrhUqdvaITEQeU_muJ2tFX41j4pNX1uFBONnHxcuifIRcmnDTkgnRbAj03-rXE

 

The suggestion of Russian involvement was planted in the public domain by someone who works for an FCO-funded NGO. And all of the usual suspect media outlets reported it as fact, knowing full well that large numbers of people would unwittingly succumb to their confirmation bias and believe it, because it fits with their existing narrative. Including you Hypo.

 

 

I see it suits your narrative to try to change the conversation. I am happy to believe that reddit have an experienced moderation team who have many years experience of this sort of "content manipulation" as they put it but I accept that some Corbynistas will believe that the right wing moderators made it up as yet another facet of their campaign against Corbyn so as I said, feel free to use IRA or refer to the many other objectionable things about Corbyn, the point remains the same.

[aintforever]

Whatabboutery again that has nothing to do with claims that right wing media bias against Corbyn prevented him from winning the election.

 

As I said, feel free to use IRA links instead, the point that you've missed is that presented with this facts, many of the British public would feel uneasy about voting for Corbyn as leader of the country even if they were presented in a simply factual manner.

 

Oh come on, the fact that you listed Corbyn’s links with Russia as a negative when Boris/Cummins clearly have a stronger association shows the power of the bias in the media.

 

What was it, the Telegraph Corbyn is Stalin headline, or the picture of him in a Russian looking hat?

[hypochondriac]

Oh come on, the fact that you listed Corbyn’s links with Russia as a negative when Boris/Cummins clearly have a stronger association shows the power of the bias in the media.

 

What was it, the Telegraph Corbyn is Stalin headline, or the picture of him in a Russian looking hat?

 

My point is that facts about Corbyn are objectionable on their own with no media spin required. He's not the type of character that people want as Prime Minister and he's done various things that people don't like. Labour have themselves to blame for this election result not some evil media campaign brainwashing the sheeple.

 

And if Corbyn has a negative assosciation with Russia then he only has himself to blame for that too considering his Salisbury statement (and yes I am aware of precisely what he did and didn't say in that circumstance, the impression it gave and the timeline involved.)

Edited 9 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[Sheaf Saint]

 

I see it suits your narrative to try to change the conversation. I am happy to believe that reddit have an experienced moderation team who have many years experience of this sort of "content manipulation" as they put it but I accept that some Corbynistas will believe that the right wing moderators made it up as yet another facet of their campaign against Corbyn so as I said, feel free to use IRA or refer to the many other objectionable things about Corbyn, the point remains the same.

 

From your link:

 

"we believe this was part of a campaign that has been reported as originating from Russia."

 

That's it. That's all the evidence.

 

And it was enough to convince you it was completely true.

 

The 'report' came from Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council, and the Integrity Initiative - the FCO-funded organisation that was found to be using its Twitter account to spread anti-Labour propaganda and has previous form for trying to falsely portray Corbyn as a Kremlin stooge. Their mission is to combat Russian disinformation campaigns, and it seems like they have learned a thing or two from that about how to use them effectively.

 

"Accuse your opponents of that which you are guilty". If you're not already familiar with this quote, I'll let you Google it and find out for yourself who famously said it.

[sadoldgit]

My point is that facts about Corbyn are objectionable on their own with no media spin required. He's not the type of character that people want as Prime Minister and he's done various things that people don't like. Labour have themselves to blame for this election result not some evil media campaign brainwashing the sheeple.

 

And if Corbyn has a negative assosciation with Russia then he only has himself to blame for that too considering his Salisbury statement (and yes I am aware of precisely what he did and didn't say in that circumstance, the impression it gave and the timeline involved.)

 

The thing is you say that he isn’t the type of person who people don’t want as Pm but he got 10m votes against Johnson’s 13m. Remove Get Brexit Done and those figures could well have been reversed. I really don’t think it is that clear cut. I know a lot of people who voted for Corbyn who have never voted Labour before. I am one of those.

[Batman]

The thing is you say that he isn’t the type of person who people don’t want as Pm but he got 10m votes against Johnson’s 13m. Remove Get Brexit Done and those figures could well have been reversed. I really don’t think it is that clear cut. I know a lot of people who voted for Corbyn who have never voted Labour before. I am one of those.

 

.

[sadoldgit]

Why are you getting into the minutiae of Corbyn and the many varied facets of his character and his actions that mean people find him unpopular? Why you feel the desire to rerun the election campaign I have no idea. Your claim was that Corbyn lost the election because of right wing media bias influencing the public. My claim was that even if the media had been entirely neutral, there are enough negatives about Corbyn and his associations which mean that people would be much more uneasy about voting for him than Johnson. I'm very confident that is the case but I accept it's impossible to prove definitively.

 

I don’t think he lost the election because of media bias but it certainly did not help. Both characters seem to turn off voters yet you only aim your barbs at Corbyn. At least he has principles even if you don’t agree with them. Does Johnson have any principles? I am not trying to rerun the election. Labour made a poor job of it as we all know but let’s not pretend that Johnson was wonderful. He bottled out of interviews, his in a fridge to avoid an interviewer and pinched a reporters phone. If Corbyn has done that can you imagine the response? Take out Get Brexit Done and what did Johnson have to offer. Luckily for him a great deal of the media was on his side so he got away with it.

[hypochondriac]

I don’t think he lost the election because of media bias but it certainly did not help. Both characters seem to turn off voters yet you only aim your barbs at Corbyn. At least he has principles even if you don’t agree with them. Does Johnson have any principles? I am not trying to rerun the election. Labour made a poor job of it as we all know but let’s not pretend that Johnson was wonderful. He bottled out of interviews, his in a fridge to avoid an interviewer and pinched a reporters phone. If Corbyn has done that can you imagine the response? Take out Get Brexit Done and what did Johnson have to offer. Luckily for him a great deal of the media was on his side so he got away with it.

If you don't think he lost the election due to media bias then why did you challenge my belief that neutral media coverage would still have meant he lost the election? Like I said, media coverage did not affect the outcome. Why are you still banging on about Corbyn? I entered this discussion when you said started talking about the media being against corbyn and that may be why he lost the election. You seem a bit obsessed with Boris and no need to have a rerun of the election. Edited 9 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

I said that Labour leaders have to struggle against a largely right wing press and any new Labour leader will have the same problem. Corbyn hadit from day 1 and always faced an uphill battle. If Keir Starmer becomes leader the snarky comments have already started with him. That is the issue. You might disagree, but it is a fact.

[Weston Super Saint]

The thing is you say that he isn’t the type of person who people don’t want as Pm but he got 10m votes against Johnson’s 13m. Remove Get Brexit Done and those figures could well have been reversed. I really don’t think it is that clear cut. I know a lot of people who voted for Corbyn who have never voted Labour before. I am one of those.

 

Cool story bro'.

 

These wouldn't be the same people who you kept bumping into coincidentally in pubs and shopping centres before the election who just happened to have the exact same opinions as you, thereby re-inforcing your arguments, would they?

[sadoldgit]

Cool story bro'.

 

These wouldn't be the same people who you kept bumping into coincidentally in pubs and shopping centres before the election who just happened to have the exact same opinions as you, thereby re-inforcing your arguments, would they?

 

Given that there are over 60m people in this country the chance of meeting people with a similar opinion isn’t exactly slim is it? The point is not everybody hated Corbyn and he did win people over. Not enough sadly but for the sake of this country we can only hope the next person does better.

[OldNick]

I don’t think he lost the election because of media bias but it certainly did not help. Both characters seem to turn off voters yet you only aim your barbs at Corbyn. At least he has principles even if you don’t agree with them. Does Johnson have any principles? I am not trying to rerun the election. Labour made a poor job of it as we all know but let’s not pretend that Johnson was wonderful. He bottled out of interviews, his in a fridge to avoid an interviewer and pinched a reporters phone. If Corbyn has done that can you imagine the response? Take out Get Brexit Done and what did Johnson have to offer. Luckily for him a great deal of the media was on his side so he got away with it.

JC's principles were anybodys interest apart from our own countries

[Batman]

JC's principles were anybodys interest apart from our own countries

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6

[sadoldgit]

JC's principles were anybodys interest apart from our own countries

 

I would disagree Nick. I think he takes a wider view that national interests should not supersede international interests. You can’t have an island mentality when you live in a global village with all of the complexities that entails. He very clearly wanted to do something about the inequity and injustices in our current system.

[sadoldgit]

Quiet afternoon so I have been reading old articles about the Gang of Four and the formation of the Social Democrats what seems like a lifetime ago. As we know they merged with the Liberals and morphed into the LibDems. Perhaps it is time for Labour and the LibDems to look at finding enough common ground to forge a new socially motivated centrist party. With the Tories shifting to the right and trading on introspective memories of resurrecting old nationalistic glories, the way is open for a modern outward looking party made up of the best of the Labour, LibDem and disaffected Tories to come in and sort out the mess that Johnson will make of leaving the EU.

[CB Fry]

Barry Gardiner has pulled out [emoji174][emoji174][emoji174][emoji174][emoji26][emoji26][emoji26][emoji26][emoji26][emoji26][emoji26] whither now, glorious revolution?

Edited 9 January, 2020 by CB Fry

[sadoldgit]

Awww, that’s a shame. I liked Barry. He certainly ticked the northern box although clearly lacked ovaries.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would disagree Nick. I think he takes a wider view that national interests should not supersede international interests. You can’t have an island mentality when you live in a global village with all of the complexities that entails. He very clearly wanted to do something about the inequity and injustices in our current system.

 

Are the Jews part of Jezza’s “global village”.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

Are the Jews part of Jezza’s “global village”.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why not? Are Muslims part of Johnson’s One Nation?

[hypochondriac]

Why not? Are Muslims part of Johnson’s One Nation?

Of course that's why he has one in his cabinet.

[shurlock]

Of course that's why he has one in his cabinet.

 

And John Lansman and James Schneider are very close allies of Corbyn. So what? It doesn't mean that the Labour party doesn't have a problem with antisemitism.

 

When Britain First members are hailing Johnson as just like them, it should raise serious questions whatever your particular political allegiances.

Edited 9 January, 2020 by shurlock

[hypochondriac]

And John Lansman and James Schneider are very close allies of Corbyn. So what? It doesn't mean that the Labour party doesn't have a problem with antisemitism.

 

When Britain First members are hailing Johnson as just like them, it should raise serious questions whatever your particular political allegiances.

It just means Britain first members are largely thick idiots. I think it's a silly idea but if you want to judge leaders by the dodgy supporters they attract then it's not like Corbyn is short in that respect. Nick Griffin is one high profile supporter for example.

[sadoldgit]

Of course that's why he has one in his cabinet.

 

Including those who look like letter boxes and bank robbers? Come on hypo, you know full well that the Tories have a problem with Islamophobia (and anti-semitism) within their party. As we were saying earlier though, the right wing media did a great job in making anti-semitism in the Labour Party the issue and played down the same issues in the Tory Party.

[hypochondriac]

Including those who look like letter boxes and bank robbers? Come on hypo, you know full well that the Tories have a problem with Islamophobia (and anti-semitism) within their party. As we were saying earlier though, the right wing media did a great job in making anti-semitism in the Labour Party the issue and played down the same issues in the Tory Party.

 

They did look like letter boxes and bank robbers he was completely correct. His article defended their right to wear it but also the right for people to say it makes them look ridiculous. Personally I think oppressive religious garments should be ridiculed because nowhere in the Qaran does it mention wearing these horrible things. If my wife faced social pressure and had been indoctrinated from birth to accept it then I'd be appalled.I've said to you before that Islamaphobia doesn't exist and is an invention from those who don't want to accept criticism of their religious. What you were searching for is Anti-Muslim prejudice and it is certainly true that members of the Tory party have expressed some anti-Muslim sentiments but it's not a credible comparison to compare that with anti-semitic problem within Labour. There has been no racist hounding of Muslim Tories from members of their own party- Sajid Javid did rather well in the leadership election. Where is the Muslim equivalent of Luciana Berger in the Tory party who resigned after relentless abuse often anti-semitic in nature from other members of the Party? At the Conservative Party conference have there been reports of people shouting Anti-Muslim slogans at Party members? If the two problems are one and the same then where is the Equality and Human Rights commission investigation into so-called Islamaphobia in the Tory party?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Including those who look like letter boxes and bank robbers? Come on hypo, you know full well that the Tories have a problem with Islamophobia (and anti-semitism) within their party. As we were saying earlier though, the right wing media did a great job in making anti-semitism in the Labour Party the issue and played down the same issues in the Tory Party.

 

The ERHC is investigating Labour, but not The Tories (having previously done so with the BNP). Are they part of this vast conspiracy against Labour? You can bet your bottom dollar some sad sack leftie will have tried to get them to do so.

 

You are conflating 2 different things in desperate whataboutary . An organisation that has a few racists in its ranks doesn’t get investigated, only organisation’s where the anti Semitic behaviour comes from the very top, they don’t have the process or will to deal with it, and it’s institutionally racist.

 

You’re obsessed with Boris joke about letter boxes but say nothing about Thornbury saying they can’t look after her child or mother and if working in a hospital should be kept hidden from the public. No matter how hard you try and pretend you’re a floating voter attracted to Corbyn everyone can see you’re a leftie loon.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

They did look like letter boxes and bank robbers he was completely correct. His article defended their right to wear it but also the right for people to say it makes them look ridiculous. Personally I think oppressive religious garments should be ridiculed because nowhere in the Qaran does it mention wearing these horrible things. If my wife faced social pressure and had been indoctrinated from birth to accept it then I'd be appalled.I've said to you before that Islamaphobia doesn't exist and is an invention from those who don't want to accept criticism of their religious. What you were searching for is Anti-Muslim prejudice and it is certainly true that members of the Tory party have expressed some anti-Muslim sentiments but it's not a credible comparison to compare that with anti-semitic problem within Labour. There has been no racist hounding of Muslim Tories from members of their own party- Sajid Javid did rather well in the leadership election. Where is the Muslim equivalent of Luciana Berger in the Tory party who resigned after relentless abuse often anti-semitic in nature from other members of the Party? At the Conservative Party conference have there been reports of people shouting Anti-Muslim slogans at Party members? If the two problems are one and the same then where is the Equality and Human Rights commission investigation into so-called Islamaphobia in the Tory party?

 

I have never seen a letter box or a bank robber that looks like that. You claim that Islamophobia does not exist puts you on the same level as the holocaust deniers. Of course it exists. Little wonder that you support the likes of Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson.

[sadoldgit]

The ERHC is investigating Labour, but not The Tories (having previously done so with the BNP). Are they part of this vast conspiracy against Labour? You can bet your bottom dollar some sad sack leftie will have tried to get them to do so.

 

You are conflating 2 different things in desperate whataboutary . An organisation that has a few racists in its ranks doesn’t get investigated, only organisation’s where the anti Semitic behaviour comes from the very top, they don’t have the process or will to deal with it, and it’s institutionally racist.

 

You’re obsessed with Boris joke about letter boxes but say nothing about Thornbury saying they can’t look after her child or mother and if working in a hospital should be kept hidden from the public. No matter how hard you try and pretend you’re a floating voter attracted to Corbyn everyone can see you’re a leftie loon.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Odd then that Johnson himself said that there would be a full investigation into Islamophobia in the Tory party.

 

There is an issue with anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. There is an issue with Islamophobia and anti-semitism within the Tory Party. No amount of childish name calling will change that. Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you admitted the shortcomings within your own party and cut out the silly names and playground behaviour.

[hypochondriac]

I have never seen a letter box or a bank robber that looks like that. You claim that Islamophobia does not exist puts you on the same level as the holocaust deniers. Of course it exists. Little wonder that you support the likes of Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson.

 

I know concepts like this are hard for you to grasp but it was very clearly hyperbole in an article from a number of years ago in the context of defending their right to wear the garments whilst also admitting that they look ridiculous (which they do.) Islamaphobia is an invented word weaponised even against those who have legitimate criticisms of the religion. There isn't even an accepted definition beyond the farcical idea that it is a "type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." Anti-Muslim prejudice is a real thing and it's a factually accurate description. That's your first Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins name check for the year, two personalities you are clearly obsessed with. I should keep a tally.

Edited 10 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

Odd then that Johnson himself said that there would be a full investigation into Islamophobia in the Tory party.

 

There is an issue with anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. There is an issue with Islamophobia and anti-semitism within the Tory Party. No amount of childish name calling will change that. Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you admitted the shortcomings within your own party and cut out the silly names and playground behaviour.

 

You can stamp your feet and present opinion as fact as much as you like but it doesn't make it true. Meanwhile the ehrc are still investigating labour for systemic anti-semitism. Why do you think they have not deemed it necessary to do the same for the Conservatives?

[Wes Tender]

Speaking of loony lefties, Gavyn's mate Andy Adonis came out with a cracker today on twa tter.

 

Remember where the ‘roaring twenties’ ended up: Hitler, the Wall Street Crash, depression and world war

[sadoldgit]

You can stamp your feet and present opinion as fact as much as you like but it doesn't make it true. Meanwhile the ehrc are still investigating labour for systemic anti-semitism. Why do you think they have not deemed it necessary to do the same for the Conservatives?

 

I am sure that we have a few people on here who moonlight for The Sun. I am not stamping my feet. I am also not sticking my head in the sand. I have agreed that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Even Corbyn agrees so I don’t know what your problem is there. It is also accepted that there is a problem with Islamophabia (which you strangely seem to believe doesn’t exist) and anti-semitism in the Tory Party. You can ignore if you like, it doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t exist.

[sadoldgit]

I know concepts like this are hard for you to grasp but it was very clearly hyperbole in an article from a number of years ago in the context of defending their right to wear the garments whilst also admitting that they look ridiculous (which they do.) Islamaphobia is an invented word weaponised even against those who have legitimate criticisms of the religion. There isn't even an accepted definition beyond the farcical idea that it is a "type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." Anti-Muslim prejudice is a real thing and it's a factually accurate description. That's your first Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins name check for the year, two personalities you are clearly obsessed with. I should keep a tally.

 

They are useful reference points for those who repeat their opinions on social media. Keep a tally if it makes you feel better. I would be more worried about sharing their opinions.

[sadoldgit]

Speaking of loony lefties, Gavyn's mate Andy Adonis came out with a cracker today on twa tter.

 

Yep Wes. It is a always best to ignore history. After all, it is not as if history ever repeats itself is it?

[hypochondriac]

I am sure that we have a few people on here who moonlight for The Sun. I am not stamping my feet. I am also not sticking my head in the sand. I have agreed that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Even Corbyn agrees so I don’t know what your problem is there. It is also accepted that there is a problem with Islamophabia (which you strangely seem to believe doesn’t exist) and anti-semitism in the Tory Party. You can ignore if you like, it doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t exist.

 

Is the problem with anti-Muslim prejudice from lone individuals in the Conservative party comparable with the systemic anti-semitism within the Labour Party? If it is at a similar level then why have the EHRC opened an investigation into Labout anti-semitism yet have not done so for the Conservatives?

[hypochondriac]

They are useful reference points for those who repeat their opinions on social media. Keep a tally if it makes you feel better. I would be more worried about sharing their opinions.

 

Nick Griffin voted for the Labour Party like you did. Do you share his opinions?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I am sure that we have a few people on here who moonlight for The Sun. I am not stamping my feet. I am also not sticking my head in the sand. I have agreed that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Even Corbyn agrees so I don’t know what your problem is there. It is also accepted that there is a problem with Islamophabia (which you strangely seem to believe doesn’t exist) and anti-semitism in the Tory Party. You can ignore if you like, it doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t exist.

 

You fail again to answer a couple of very simple questions. Are EHRC part of this great right wing smear campaign and why haven’t they launched an investigation into The Tories.(after all they do go after racist parties like The BNP & Labour).

 

Just to help you with your answer, here’s what they wrote at the time.

 

“We have carefully considered the response we have received from the Party and have opened a formal investigation.

We are using our powers under the Equality Act to open an investigation”.

 

So they didn’t just open an investigation, they carefully considered labours response and were clearly unsatisfied with their answers.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Nick Griffin voted for the Labour Party like you did. Do you share his opinions?

 

Evidence that he voted for the Labour Party?

[hypochondriac]

Evidence that he voted for the Labour Party?

 

IF he sticks to his guns then for 1st time in my life I will vote #Labour - right now NOTHING is more important than resisting the psychotic rush to #WW3 of Boris & the #neocons

 

The point is that all sorts of objectionable people vote for political parties you may have voted for. It doesn't mean you align with them in all areas or that you are somehow associated with them. It's a weird smear tactic.

Edited 10 January, 2020 by hypochondriac

[shurlock]

IF he sticks to his guns then for 1st time in my life I will vote #Labour - right now NOTHING is more important than resisting the psychotic rush to #WW3 of Boris & the #neocons

 

That's not evidence he actually voted for Labour pal. You do know what a conditional statement is? Its there in the first word (I'll leave aside the fact that the tweet was about Labour's stance on nonintervention -a position shared by pacifists and hardly controversial- which is very different from Britain First's racist support for Johnson specifically because of his stance on Muslims which is the subject of the conversation. It will just go above your head).

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/04/nick-griffin-declares-his-support-jeremy-corbyn

 

In other tweets he has gone on to attack Corbyn's radical, drastic and destructive archaic socialist crackpottery.

 

So I'll ask you again: evidence that he voted Labour? Or are you going to continue to embarrass yourself?