Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Well yes - I mean there was the small matter of a global recession, for instance.

 

But at the very least, you ought to be able to demonstrate that people actually died.

But how do you a show a direct link?

That fella from liverpool who had his benefits stopped and died?

Was that a direct result of austerity?

Or just an inhumane gmnt?

[sir roger]

5 hours ago, Stickman said:

 

 

Labour has investigated the director of one of its affiliated pro-Israel organizations for “threatening to attack” another member of the UK’s main opposition party.

Director of the Jewish Labour Movement Ella Rose had been caught on camera saying her critics should “die in a hole.”

 

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/jewish-labour-movement-director-investigated-violent-threat

She is the girl who deliberately avoided mentioning her name or her links to the Jewish Labour Movement in the Panorama thing

[Bjornebye]

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

Stab him in the front,

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/finsbury-park-attack-darren-osborne-kill-jeremy-corbyn

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Well, yeah, obviously, Allison. I mean, whoever heard of a far-right anti-Semite?

 

 

[Creator Supreme]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Well, yeah, obviously, Allison. I mean, whoever heard of a far-right anti-Semite?

 

 

I might be speaking out of turn here, but does anybody else get the impression that Allisson Pearson is a stupid twat?

[Bjornebye]

13 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

I might be speaking out of turn here, but does anybody else get the impression that Allisson Pearson is a stupid twat?

She retweets Toby Young and Darren Grimes so yeah she's a complete twat. Also a lying horrible twat and a thick stupid twat. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

4 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

13 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

 

 

You know that that doesn't justify the other and that's still an awful lot of abuse directed her way, right?

 

That's still an awful lot of invective thrown at a woman, despite what caricatures have been built and destroyed for doing a job she was elected to do, in the main by people who didn't, or couldn't vote for her.

 

Doesn't matter what you personaly think of her, that's abuse plain and simple.

 

Compartmentalisation should be taught in schools.

 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just now, Bruce Spanner said:

 

You know that that doesn't justify the other and that's still an awful lot of abuse directed her way, right?

 

That's still an awful lot of invective thrown at a woman, despite what caricatures have been built and destroyed for doing a job she was elected to do, in the main by people who didn't, or couldn't vote for her.

 

Doesn't matter what you personaly think of her, that's abuse plain and simple.

 

Compartmentalisation should be taught in schools.

 

 

I'm not sure how my posting a screenshot suggested any of the above. 

 

It's possible to both think that online abuse should be stamped out and that leading journalists shouldn't tweet wildly inaccurate stories and figures. 

 

Hope this helps. 

[Bjornebye]

This is the same Margaret Hodge who screamed into Corbyns face calling him a "fucking racist and anti-semite" of which he is neither. She's not the wallflower she's trying to make out. Should she be getting 'abuse' online? No course not, should she be pulled up on her wildly inaccurate figures? Yes, yes she fucking should. 

[sir roger]

Every time I hear Hodge mentioned I just worry so much that she might fall over all of the suitcases in her hall and break her neck.

[Bruce Spanner]

7 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

This is the same Margaret Hodge who screamed into Corbyns face calling him a "fucking racist and anti-semite" of which he is neither. She's not the wallflower she's trying to make out. Should she be getting 'abuse' online? No course not, should she be pulled up on her wildly inaccurate figures? Yes, yes she fucking should. 

 

Be that as it may there are two very different arguments being subsumed into the same one as a means of justifying the unjustifiable.

 

Hodge is a cunt, i'm well aware, but that doesn't mean a load of sad, pathetic little fucks have carte blanche to hurl anonymous abuse and threats as they don't agree with every single utterance.

 

There has to be a proper system and not this vitriolic free for all we have now as it's not in any way fucking healthy.

[Gnasher]

13 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I'm not sure how my posting a screenshot suggested any of the above. 

 

It's possible to both think that online abuse should be stamped out and that leading journalists shouldn't tweet wildly inaccurate stories and figures. 

 

Hope this helps. 

Spanners conveniently missed the point, which is odd considering how often he trumpets how intelligent he is.

 

The issue here is once again (just as the time she told fibs over Corbyn) Hodge has been caught lying over the figures. 

 

90 fucking thousand!! Oh do fuck off.

 

90 thousand, she's plucked that out of her arse.

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Be that as it may there are two very different arguments being subsumed into the same one as a means of justifying the unjustifiable.

 

Hodge is a cunt, i'm well aware, but that doesn't mean a load of sad, pathetic little fucks have carte blanche to hurl anonymous abuse and threats as they don't agree with every single utterance.

 

There has to be a proper system and not this vitriolic free for all we have now as it's not in any way fucking healthy.

I've just said she shouldn't be getting abused. 

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Be that as it may there are two very different arguments being subsumed into the same one as a means of justifying the unjustifiable.

 

Hodge is a cunt, i'm well aware, but that doesn't mean a load of sad, pathetic little fucks have carte blanche to hurl anonymous abuse and threats as they don't agree with every single utterance.

 

There has to be a proper system and not this vitriolic free for all we have now as it's not in any way fucking healthy.

You do realise their is a block option available on twitter, as their is on almost all social sites?

[TheHowieLama]

By now if you are on Twitter with any sort of following you know the drill. 

Anyone who is really concerned about the effects of social media on them or in fact society as a whole would have binned it.

[Bruce Spanner]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I've just said she shouldn't be getting abused. 

 

I know, we're arguing at cross purposes and in broard agreement.

 

I'm saying that because a woman say's she receives X amount and that she only actually receives Y it's fine, it's patent nonsense to even accept that as a palatable argument or justification for abuse hurled her way.

 

I wasn't arguing with you more the system that allows these parameters to even be discussed.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

By now if you are on Twitter with any sort of following you know the drill. 

Anyone who is really concerned about the effects of social media on them or in fact society as a whole would have binned it.

Some of them thrive off the shit they get because they can point at it and then take a moral high-ground. Look at Rachel Riley for example. She isn't arsed when she's inviting a mass attack on a 16 year old girl or making slanderous comments about people but when she got called out on it she had the cheek to turn on the crocodile tears and play the victim. 

[Gnasher]

The issue is she's lying again, but Spanner knew that really,

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

I have to be honest amigo - I don't look to Rachel Riley as an example for anything. I don't even look to Rachel Ray and she can cook. Maybe it is a generational thing.

Certainly we can understand that it is about money, not values or morals.

[Gnasher]

The other more serious issue here is Hodge claimed she received x amount of anti semitic abuse by Labour Party members and reported it with great fanfare, the amount of abuse was disputed but the claim did massive damage to then leader Jeremy Corbyn. Roll on to present day and our Maggie is once again putting fanciful figures on the so called abuse she's received, in the interests of little things like "accuracy" "truth" these figures are being questioned.

 

In short, Hodge is today  proving herself to be a big fucking bullshit merchant.

 

 

[Gnasher]

55 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

I know, we're arguing at cross purposes and in broard agreement.

 

I'm saying that because a woman say's she receives X amount and that she only actually receives Y it's fine, it's patent nonsense to even accept that as a palatable argument or justification for abuse hurled her way.

Except precisely no one is saying its fine to abuse Hodge because X amount of abuse is not as much as Y,  you've invented that little scenario yourself, which is rather odd. 

 

The real reason people are crunching her numbers is because Hodge has history for making outlandish claims on the amount of abuse she received from supposed members of the Labour Party. On inspection the figures SHE put forward were found to be a lie. A lie that did damage to the  Labour Party in their fight against the tories. That's why HER use of figures today are legitimately being questioned, but I think you knew that really.

 

Note Hodge use of figures in her tweet at top of the page, figures that proved to be false.

 

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/02/12/excl-hodges-200-labour-complaints-90-were-not-labour-members/

 

55 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

I wasn't arguing with you more the system that allows these parameters to even be discussed.

 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

By now if you are on Twitter with any sort of following you know the drill. 

Anyone who is really concerned about the effects of social media on them or in fact society as a whole would have binned it.

 

Is that really an option for MPs who need to keep in touch with constituents and other concerned parties?

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Is that really an option for MPs who need to keep in touch with constituents and other concerned parties?

Yes, of course.

It only came about 10 years ago and there are countless examples of folks in the public eye who do not use it.