Jump to content

Politics


Christmas Tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Gemmill said:

 

 

This guy is really good - another tweet thread he has covers that Labour has adopted the phrasing for the definition of anti-semitism word for word from the IHRA, and his contention is that the bits that they've changed were done because the IHRA document is non legally binding, and the code of conduct -is- legally binding. They can't have woolly examples, and need clarity. Maybe this guy is a very good PR person, or maybe this is a media witch hunt again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

This guy is really good - another tweet thread he has covers that Labour has adopted the phrasing for the definition of anti-semitism word for word from the IHRA, and his contention is that the bits that they've changed were done because the IHRA document is non legally binding, and the code of conduct -is- legally binding. They can't have woolly examples, and need clarity. Maybe this guy is a very good PR person, or maybe this is a media witch hunt again.

But yet no one from Labour has made that point despite incredible scrutiny? 

This fella may as well have loaded them into the gas chambers himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ewerk said:

But yet no one from Labour has made that point despite incredible scrutiny? 

This fella may as well have loaded them into the gas chambers himself.

 

The contention that Labour's PR people are fucking useless is not a new one. Also, Corbyn genuinely doesn't seem to give a shit about confronting the media on such allegations, to his detriment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is grasping at straws. This is all down to Corbyn's lack of intelligence. These guidelines don't prohibit him from saying anything that he has already said. He's just a dim, obstinate cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

@Dr Gloom

 

Yeah fair enough - I won't go through point by point as I think some of those have reached natural endings, but the last bit you mentioned where you said the bit about not consulting actual Jews - it's my understanding that they did. They just didn't consult Jews with pro-Israel sympathies? Good post btw.

did they? like who? i wasn't aware of that. even if they did, why not speak to jews on both sides of the debate?  if they had properly consulted the jewish community they could have easily predicted how this would play out and avoided this ongoing media shit storm. 

the fact that the most progressive mainstream political party in the UK felt compelled to act on the issue in the first place is bad enough. this was supposed to about labour getting its house in order and ending a long-running row, which you could argue has received way too many column inches given everything else that's going on in the world right now, and yet they somehow contrive to fuck it up!

what i find most galling is that they felt the need to design a bespoke code in the first place, like the version which is globally recognised isn't good enough. what a set of pompous dickheads. does corbyn want to lead a debating club or a government? 

i think we agree about the racist endeavour line - it isn't brilliantly worded - but it's there because jews fear those who seek to overturn it also deny the jewish state's right to exist. the IHRA definition allows for plenty of debate about israel's current policy. if they had just adopted the full thing, labour MPs would have been free to call israel racist state under netanyahu all they like. and let's be fair, it's hard to argue against that - the likud government has little interest in peace.

so it begs the question why they couldn't just adopt the IHRA definition in the first place - is it all about principle and free speech? are they determined to protect antisemites in the party? or are they just idiots? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looking at ths thread thinking "609 pages a lot of waffling, wonder what page 1 looked like"

 

The first post is CT posting and talking about an article called "We must be fair to everyone, even the rich" and the second is him being called an idiot.

 

The more things change...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

Straight out of the Bannon playbook, that one. Pandering to the Kipper end of the Tory pool, which turns out to be a regrettably deep one.

Yep, whilst not actually committing to anything concrete such as a proposal to ban the burka in public places. Not to mention the fact that he spends his entire life looking ridiculous (literally and metaphorically).

Edited by Alex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.