Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I had two accounts on the same email: one for me and one on behalf of my union branch. Getting my personal one banned was a pain in the hole, but they've left the union one active, so I have to be a bit careful. 

Don't go on twitter with alcohol in your system. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Imagine if I was pissed when I saw the latest from this hateful troll.

 

 

[Mudface]

48 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Just say up a new email but I've had to use different mobile numbers the last few times so I've used my mums months ago and our kids recently. I'm not banned at the moment. 

I've got a Twitter account (I don't post, it's just for ease of browsing), and didn't have to give my phone number.

[lifetime fan]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Don't go on twitter with alcohol in your system. 

You do yourself a disservice mate. 
 

You could easily get banned stone cold sober. 

[Creator Supreme]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Imagine if I was pissed when I saw the latest from this hateful troll.

 

 

If I still worked along the corridor from where she had her offices I'd be highly tempted to knock on her door and kick her in the cunt!!

[Gnasher]

5 hours ago, cloggypop said:

Seems like loads of blerts are doing it wrong. 

I'm failing to see the downside, 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

Oh dear, I can see this whole charade getting messy, thread.

 

 

 

 

[The Guest]

14 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Oh dear, I can see this whole charade getting messy, thread.

 

 

 

 

Starmer is just another snivelling little right wing cunt.

[Gnasher]

Wrong type of jew? Rachael Riley wont be happy,

 

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

10 hours ago, The Guest said:

Starmer is just another snivelling little right wing cunt.

Yes, those are exactly the words I’d use...

 

Pathetic.

 

Are you 12?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Decent thread about stuff that really happened, but somehow doesn't fit with *checks notes* every single fucking word published in the shitrags for the last 5 fucking years.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 03/11/2020 at 14:19, AngryofTuebrook said:

The "true colours" are what they always were: I get annoyed by lies.

You are so entrenched that you're becoming self-delusional. I've not lied, so it's has nothing to do with your true colours. Your true colours are that you've seen your arse over some things I've said about the man you hero-worship. Your true colours are to dismiss everything as lies because it doesn't fit in with your deluded, twitter-parroted world view. If you hated lies you could have simply asked 'can you back up these claims or retract them'. You didn't do that, instead of civility you went on a half-cocked, half-brained, poorly-emboldened rant about how I'm a liar. Sure thing, you hate lies so much that you made-up an apology to deflect from criticism of Corbyn. What a joke. I've been too lazy recently for this nonsense, but these 'lies' are so easily verifiable that I can't resist. You saying over and over again that they're lies doesn't actually make them lies, you realise this? Now, hopefully you'll show some of the dignity currently missing from than the man you continually go out of your way to defend, and apologise for what you posted. I won't hold my breath.

On 03/11/2020 at 14:19, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'll grant you one point, though: I don't think Corbyn has apologised since the EHRC report 

Ah. So it begins. So the first and, so far, only accusation of a 'lie' that I've addressed wasn't actually a lie. Great stuff. You'll 'grant' me that, will you? Thanks. How about an apology for calling it a lie? I won't hold my breath. What a total lack of honesty and integrity, you partisan hack. 

On 03/11/2020 at 14:19, AngryofTuebrook said:

Now that's out of the way, any chance you could find some facts to back up the lies I called out?

As I said, 'before dealing with the rest of the mindless bollocks you’ve just typed, can you please show where he apologised after the report'. You've admitted that was made up. So, sure; let's deal with my 'lies' from the top.

 

1: I said he hasn't. You said he did. You've now admitted he hasn't. You were wrong and you made it up. You made it up in the very same post that you also said 'don't let the lies take hold' and 'stop making shit up'. You made shit up in the same post you warned against making shit up. That makes you a hypocrite; I see your true colours and they're all shit-brown. Him not apologising in his statement is just representative of all the things that are about to follow. 

 

2: I said, he 'disputes the findings'. You said 'he disputed some - not all - of the EHRC findings'. I didn't say he disputes all of the findings; If you don't accept all of the findings, you don't accept the findings as a collective set. But let's get beyond the semantics and look at what actually happened and what he actually disputed so we can get a handle on what he disputes and how accurate it is to say he disputes the findings (spoiler: very accurate). 

 

In his apology-devoid response to the report he said 'I do not accept all of its findings'. So that's already a show that he is in the business of refuting findings. Then, in an interview aired on C4, he disputed the harassment findings (to quote the report: 'we found specific examples of harassment, discrimination and political interference in our evidence, but equally of concern was a lack of leadership within the Labour Party on these issues') and political interference findings (to quote the report: 'we have concluded that this practice of political interference was unlawful. The evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. Sometimes these decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any clear formal criteria' and 'Political Interference in antisemitism complaints amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination against its Jewish members'). Video of this was was posted here, and I recommended people watch it just after. You're a ferret-up-a-drainpipe when defending him, so I'm surprised you didn't read these. 

 

Then he says, and this is pretty damning, 'no, I'm not part of the problem'. Not part of the problem! He said he doesn't believe he failed! The report finding was that 'we have identified serious failings in leadership during the period the investigation looked at, and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints across the Labour Party. While there have been some improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it'. Alasdair Henderson read from the EHRC report saying, 'it's hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been handled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so'. Not part of the problem! Doesn't think he failed! If this isn't a man dodging responsibility and rejecting the findings of the report, I'd like to see what is. 

 

This leaves the question that if he doesn't accept those key findings, if he doesn't accept all the findings, which findings does he actually accept? That's not a rhetorical question, I want you to answer exactly which findings does he accept. The only ones I see him accepting are those cherrypicked and parroted by you that makes him look like the report is somehow a show of success for him. Is there anything substantive out of the key findings that are critical that he accepts? You say I'm 'lying', but this is a ridiculous - ridiculous - assertion and you should apologise. It is an attempt to deflect that, on the key findings of failure, he refutes them, he shirks his personal responsibility, and he fails to adequately apologise. It's terrible way for a leader to behave. It's a terrible way for a person to behave. 

 

3. I said 'it was shown that he was responsible for a party of unlawful harassment and discrimination'. You said 'it was not "shown that he was responsible for a party of unlawful harassment and discrimination". You are wrong, so let's test this against what is actually in the report. The report states multiple times about unlawful harassment and discrimination, they say that leadership could be seen to accept it, they say leadership could have dealt with it more efficiently if they wanted to do so, and they say that it is as a result of political interference from the Leader of the Opposition's office, so let's put my lies on the table:

 

You say that it was to speed things up, but it wasn't; that's entirely dishonest and deliberately skirts over the rest of the findings. The Leader of the Opposition's Office politically interfered, not for expediency, but to save face. To quote the report, 'the evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. Sometimes these decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any clear formal criteria' with his team saying 'we have let the Ken case drag on for far too long already and, if GLU leak to the press that we have held up this investigation of him, it will look beyond awful'. For you to play that off as 'speeding things up' is just scummy. That's not about helping, it's about how they look; it's about themselves and their own arses. Yes it says some cases were catalysed, but you mention that as if this was a good thing or as an excuse for the findings, but the bit you neglect to mention in the same sentence is that it leads to unlawful indirect discrimination and that, as a consequence of this interference in politically sensitive complaints, it 'put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members'. The Leader of the Opposition office 'interfered in the decision to investigate the conduct of Ken Livingston'. They also said he was personally involved in that case as 'this clearly shows the involvement of the Leader, then Jeremy Corbyn, and LOTO staff in the decision to suspend Ken Livingstone'. That's just not on, no matter what the reason or the outcome. The report makes clear this 'contamination' results in a disadvantage for Jewish members. This is not speeding things up, it's covering your arse at the expense of discriminatory practices. 

 

You said it was to strengthen penalties, but you deliberately miss out where the report says 'the formal practice or policy of involving Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) in antisemitism complaints in March–April 2018, amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination against its Jewish members'. Against them. 'We also find that the practice of political interference indirectly discriminated against Jewish members and was unlawful'. It gives this examples that the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) 'directly interfered in the decision not to investigate' the complain made against Corbyn. I'll say that again, the Leader's office politically interfered so the leader wasn't investigated. Only to the most twisted, most partisan, most brainwashed person can read that the LOTO interfered to stop investigation into the Leader and ignore it, then claim it was so they could smack-down even harder, especially having already read that the 'investigation has identified serious failings in leadership' in their report of antisemitism. 

 

If the Leader of the Opposition isn't responsible for the Leader of the Opposition's office, who is? If the Leader isn't responsible for the actions of the Leader, who is? You hold Starmer responsible for not single-handedly uniting the Labour Party in the few months he has been leader, but you want to shirk the responsibility on Corbyn for the party, for his own office, and his own personal interference. Well, the report is clear on this. Essentially, you're calling me a liar because I am guilty of having the ability to read and understand the document and because I took the time to inform myself before spouting off. You're calling me a liar for holding the Leader of the Opposition responsible for the Leader of the Opposition, his office, and his party. You're wrong, you're out of line, and you should apologise. 

 

4. You said 'Corbyn did not say that the EHRC report was overblown'. Yes, that's correct. You seem to be talking to somebody you think said he did. By his rebuttals, by his lack of apology in his statement, and by his comments he is clearly underselling it, he clearly thinks a lot is political, but he also accepts there is antisemitism in the Labour Party. Nobody here is suggesting he thinks it doesn't exist, just that he understates it. The report makes it clear that his actions indicate that he didn't take it seriously enough. Alasdair Henderson, the EHRC’s lead investigator, 'rejected Corbyn’s claim that complaints of antisemitism were overblown, saying 'we found two specific unlawful acts and 18 more in the sample that we found' ... 'And, as we said, that's the tip of the iceberg there were a lot more instances of antisemitic conduct by members of the party in that large group of files that we looked at, which didn't quite meet the threshold for us to say it was an unlawful act but were definitely there, and were taking place. So I just point you back to our findings'. It says that if leadership wanted to it could have been dealt with more effectively. He clearly didn't take it seriously enough, he still is clearly in denial about it, and it's clearly rubbing off. Wake the fuck up.

 

5. You said 'don't pretend that picking that fratricidal fight is healing'. Starmer didn't pick this fight, you lunatic. In now way, or by no stretch of the English language, did he pick a fight. He inherited mess and now has the responsibility for clearing in up in a way that Corbyn couldn't and, according to the report, failed at and even accepted. Corbyn was suspended by the correct people pending investigation. That's not a fratricidal fight, that's being good to your word. The very fact you've not criticised Corbyn for his response or for anything in the report since then shows that I'm pissing into the wind. You're not interested in fact or logic or truth or rebutting lies, you're interested in backing your man, just as you always have.

 

In closing, You don't get 'annoyed by lies', you parrot them. You don't 'dislike bullshit', you spread it. Not because you're a shithouse, though you've acted like an arsehole calling me a liar rather than showing civility and asking me to back up my claims, but it's because you've swallowed the bullshit that has been put out because you trust him and you like him. You and a few others on here are very similar in mindset to the Trump supporters. They too live in a post-truth reality. They too think they are secure in moral correctness. They too think they're the ones doing the right thing. They too believe that the opposition is a threat and they're the defence; so much so that they can't see outside of their bubble. You're not lying, you're just mindlessly parroting the Corbyn party line and you're really just trying to convince yourself that he hasn't said the things he has about the key findings regarding serious failures of leadership resulting in unlawful interference, harassment, and discrimination in the party.  

 

Now, please stop calling me a liar just because you've had your nose put out of joint. If you keep insulting me like a bitch, you'll keep getting slapped down like a bitch. Act with civility and we can carry on. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 03/11/2020 at 17:25, Gnasher said:

Oh dear, I can see this whole charade getting messy, thread.

 

 

I reckon this Alex Nunns fella should listen to what he linked to. 

11 hours ago, The Guest said:

Starmer is just another snivelling little right wing cunt.

Agreed. Do you think he's more right than Rees-Mogg or not quite? Out of interesting, what do you think his worst right wing policy is? 

[Gnasher]

Re Corbyn/Raina. Maybe I'm getting my wires crossed here but wasnt their a poll where the public thought the amount of anti semitic episodes in the labour party was much smaller than it actually was? Possibly what Corbyn referred to with Raina? If not and its  just her own personal view when discussing the subject with Corbyn then it's no big deal, it's her opinion and shes entitled to it but she provides no new evidence of anything or new revelations about the subject so it all sounds a bit Meh really. 

 

Edit. Also I think you said you were fed up talking about Corbyn but the explosion means low and behold the Labour deputy leader got to talk about Corbyn. It also keeps the anti semitic line ticking in the media.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

35 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

You are so entrenched that you're becoming self-delusional. I've not lied, so it's has nothing to do with your true colours. Your true colours are that you've seen your arse over some things I've said about the man you hero-worship. Your true colours are to dismiss everything as lies because it doesn't fit in with your deluded, twitter-parroted world view. 

Well, thank you Doctor Nummer for your fascinating insights into my personality.  It's truly amazing that, even without ever meeting me, you are able to reveal deep truths about me that I never knew myself. 

 

I really can't be arsed with any more of this nonsense. I could reply properly to your horseshit and you'd keep going, tilting at windmills and ranting unhealthily around and around your same old blinkered viewpoint.  Ain't nobody got no time for that. Let's cut to the chase; you claim the win and I'll just crack on with real life.

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Well, thank you Doctor Nummer for your fascinating insights into my personality.  It's truly amazing that, even without ever meeting me, you are able to reveal deep truths about me that I never knew myself. 

Without a hint of irony. Well done.

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

I really can't be arsed with any more of this nonsense. I could reply properly to your horseshit and you'd keep going, tilting at windmills and ranting unhealthily around and around your same old blinkered viewpoint.  Ain't nobody got no time for that. Let's cut to the chase; you claim the win and I'll just crack on with real life.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

35 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Well, thank you Doctor Nummer for your fascinating insights into my personality.  It's truly amazing that, even without ever meeting me, you are able to reveal deep truths about me that I never knew myself. 

 

I really can't be arsed with any more of this nonsense. I could reply properly to your horseshit and you'd keep going, tilting at windmills and ranting unhealthily around and around your same old blinkered viewpoint.  Ain't nobody got no time for that. Let's cut to the chase; you claim the win and I'll just crack on with real life.

Well, lucky I didn’t hold my breath. 

[Gnasher]

These freinds of Israel mob dont seem very nice do they? 

 

 

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-politician-boasts-about-role-corbyns-downfall

 

[Rico1304]

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

These freinds of Israel mob dont seem very nice do they? 

 

 

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-politician-boasts-about-role-corbyns-downfall

 

Imagine being pleased that the bloke who wants to destroy your country gets in shit. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

17 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Imagine being pleased that the bloke who wants to destroy your country gets in shit. 

Destroy Israel? Corbyn? You sure? 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Imagine being pleased that the bloke who wants to destroy your country gets in shit. 

Spot on again Rico.  When asked Corbyn said his ideal holiday is standing in Gaza for a fortnight throwing stones at Israel.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Imagine being pleased that the bloke who wants to destroy your country gets in shit. 

Magnificent trolling.

[sir roger]

Jonathan Sacks dead

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, sir roger said:

Jonathan Sacks dead

I just had to Google what the link to this thread was and I found this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45333268

 

Apparently, Jeremy Corbyn making a daft little joke about three people who had been bugging him was worse than Enoch Powell saying "the black man will have the whip hand" and stirring up racist hatred.

 

But, whatever you do, don't suggest that the hysteria around "Labour's anti-Semitism crisis" was in any way exaggerated.

[Gnasher]

Some of the media that are salivating over Joe Biden this morning are the same media who fuelled the Jeremy Corbyn/IRA line to diminish the ex labour leader to the British public.