Quantcast
The New Leader of the Labour Party - Page 88 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Numero

The New Leader of the Labour Party

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Walter Sobchak said:

Getting negged for giving a difference of opinion.


 

@Duff Man @Nelly-Torres @Brownie Just highlighting my point thanks lads.

 

You were negged fir chatting shite. And not being able to read between the lines. The report clearly shows that some in the Labour Party were trying to undermine any chance, albeit slim, of Labour winning the 2017 election. 

 

If people joined the party because of Corbyn and they liked the direction he was taking the party, then they're fully entitled to leave, particularly if they were out campaigning towards that goal and their efforts were being undermined by a small group of power hungry eejits, who also were belittling these people by calling them racists, trots etc. 

 

*and an extra neg for moaning about being negged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aRdja said:

If he doesn’t want to read his match reports or to post in the members forum, then why should he be shamed into paying for it? Has Dave asked for your help to get people to upgrade? Or are you just doing it out of the goodness of your heart, just you wanting to make sure that Dave’s sorted financially?

As I quite clearly said in my post I see it like being a regular and not buying a pint. Just rude and a bit shitty.  I don’t know Dave, never met him so have no reason to toady up to him. I’d think the same if you ran the site, it’s the principle of posting thousands of times and not putting your hand in your pocket if you can afford it. Which Cloggy can. Bad form. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

As I quite clearly said in my post I see it like being a regular and not buying a pint. Just rude and a bit shitty.  I don’t know Dave, never met him so have no reason to toady up to him. I’d think the same if you ran the site, it’s the principle of posting thousands of times and not putting your hand in your pocket if you can afford it. Which Cloggy can. Bad form. 

I must admit although I havnt this year paid my sub I sort of agree with Rico on this point. If you can't, no bother, no worry. 

 

But for people who are ok financially  ( I'm one of the culprits)  hes got a valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:


No, I’m not. I’ve just been paying attention for the last five years and can remember the cases that show people who work for Corbyn in the LOTO have engaged in similar behaviour. I’m not assuming anything. Defending their allies when they shouldn’t, providing political cover etc...

 

I’m sure everyone can remember them trying to abolish the deputy post to get rid of Tom Watson for example. Now you might be alright with that because you don’t like Watson but don’t pretend that’s any different to what the other side have been doing against Corbyn. 
 

In an earlier post you mentioned Danczuk, and I agree that was handled terribly and he should have been fucked off sooner. However, here is an example of Karie Murphy apparently suppressing an investigation into Pete Willsman over allegations of sexual misconduct, based on leaked emails just like the ones leaked in the current report. 


So I’m comfortable saying there is evidence both sides have engaged in similar conduct and have spent loads of time acting like cunts towards each other. 
 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-plunged-into-sexual-harassment-row-after-top-aide-allegedly-played-down-allegations

I'd argue the Danczuk stuff was a little more serious, but that's a dead-end not worth exploring. I do agree Murphy's handling of Willsman situation wasn't right.

 

I'm not seeing much evidence of Corbyn's allies sabotaging Labour's election chances, though. Surely that's a fairly substantial difference? I've heard it repeated over and over again, that everyone "just wants Labour to win". It's the one thing that unites us under the broad church blah blah blah. Well, these cunts didn't even want that. To them, the Tories winning, and their mates not losing their seats, were more desirable than an actual Labour government.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I'd argue the Danczuk stuff was a little more serious, but that's a dead-end not worth exploring. I do agree Murphy's handling of Willsman situation wasn't right.

 

I'm not seeing much evidence of Corbyn's allies sabotaging Labour's election chances, though. Surely that's a fairly substantial difference? I've heard it repeated over and over again, that everyone "just wants Labour to win". It's the one thing that unites us under the broad church blah blah blah. Well, these cunts didn't even want that. To them, the Tories winning, and their mates not losing their seats, were more desirable than an actual Labour government.

But lots of people said they wanted Corbyn as leader even if it meant not winning an election as he was a true socialist.  Isn’t that the same? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe that Corbyn's policies were mostly sound and Labour lost the recent election due to 3 things:

 

1. Infighting, backstabbing and spurious accusations of anti-Semitism

 

2. Brexit. I'm a remainer, like most on here, but we need to accept that most Britains rabidly want to leave

 

3. Corbyn himself. I respect and admire the fella but it's undeniable that large swathes the electorate have consumed this "IRA sympathiser" narrative constantly regurgitated by the right wing media, hook line and sinker.

 

I don't think members should quit the Labour Party though, a party founded on socialist ideals and principles, conversely it should be the Blairite pink Tories who fuck off to pastures new At least that smarmy twat Chukka Umuna finally grew a pair and did just that.

 

This could be a good moment for Labour; the cold civil war which has been raging has surely proven one thing, that both sides of the party cannot coexist. A clean break is needed imo, pick your side.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I'd argue the Danczuk stuff was a little more serious, but that's a dead-end not worth exploring. I do agree Murphy's handling of Willsman situation wasn't right.

 

I'm not seeing much evidence of Corbyn's allies sabotaging Labour's election chances, though. Surely that's a fairly substantial difference? I've heard it repeated over and over again, that everyone "just wants Labour to win". It's the one thing that unites us under the broad church blah blah blah. Well, these cunts didn't even want that. To them, the Tories winning, and their mates not losing their seats, were more desirable than an actual Labour government.

Why would they do that, if they ran the party? And isn't leaking or making all this dirt public a move in that direction, judging by the reaction of people on here threatening to leave? As in, apres mois la deluge as Delboy would say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

You were negged fir chatting shite. And not being able to read between the lines. The report clearly shows that some in the Labour Party were trying to undermine any chance, albeit slim, of Labour winning the 2017 election. 

 

If people joined the party because of Corbyn and they liked the direction he was taking the party, then they're fully entitled to leave, particularly if they were out campaigning towards that goal and their efforts were being undermined by a small group of power hungry eejits, who also were belittling these people by calling them racists, trots etc. 

 

*and an extra neg for moaning about being negged. 

Some, not all.

 

Like some, not all, on the left spent years Briefing against Blair, Brown and Milliband.

 

I find it genuinely hilarious that they are all now crying foul play. Supposed it just fuels more conspiracies doesn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Why would they do that, if they ran the party? And isn't leaking or making all this dirt public a move in that direction, judging by the reaction of people on here threatening to leave? As in, apres mois la deluge as Delboy would say?

They hadn't always run the party. And the leak, it would seem to me, is borne out of frustration at the EHRC not accepting the report. If there's a genuine desire to find out what happened re Labour and antisemitism, I don't know how anyone can argue that the information it holds isn't relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I'd argue the Danczuk stuff was a little more serious, but that's a dead-end not worth exploring. I do agree Murphy's handling of Willsman situation wasn't right.

 

I'm not seeing much evidence of Corbyn's allies sabotaging Labour's election chances, though. Surely that's a fairly substantial difference? I've heard it repeated over and over again, that everyone "just wants Labour to win". It's the one thing that unites us under the broad church blah blah blah. Well, these cunts didn't even want that. To them, the Tories winning, and their mates not losing their seats, were more desirable than an actual Labour government.

The start of that 2nd paragraph is exactly what’s happening now. The left throwing toys out the pram because Starmer is leader and just showing everyone the Labour Party is still a bunch of leftie cry babies.

 

2017 has been and gone. Just fuck off and knock this shit on the head. Two wrong and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

They hadn't always run the party. And the leak, it would seem to me, is borne out of frustration at the EHRC not accepting the report. If there's a genuine desire to find out what happened re Labour and antisemitism, I don't know how anyone can argue that the information it holds isn't relevant.

If this was borne out of a genuine desire to get to the truth, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Walter Sobchak said:

The start of that 2nd paragraph is exactly what’s happening now. The left throwing toys out the pram because Starmer is leader and just showing everyone the Labour Party is still a bunch of leftie cry babies.

 

2017 has been and gone. Just fuck off and knock this shit on the head. Two wrong and all that.

You must favour that colossal fucking bump under the carpet then Walter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

If this was borne out of a genuine desire to get to the truth, yes.

Well, they first submitted it to the EHRC, rather than leaked it to the public, so that suggests it was. But regardless, it's not even in the same fucking ballpark as senior staffers misallocating party funds during an active election campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Well, they first submitted it to the EHRC, rather than leaked it to the public, so that suggests it was. But regardless, it's not even in the same fucking ballpark as senior staffers misallocating party funds during an active election campaign.


Where have you read that they tried to submit it to the EHRC? All the reports I’ve read say that Labour Party lawyers said it couldn’t be submitted as it covered a different period than the EHRC investigation. 
 

 

EDB90EAE-15F7-4A0F-9EF5-FE4EA9B291B3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:


Where have you read that they tried to submit it to the EHRC? All the reports I’ve read say that Labour Party lawyers said it couldn’t be submitted as it covered a different period than the EHRC investigation. 
 

 

EDB90EAE-15F7-4A0F-9EF5-FE4EA9B291B3.png

Why would party lawyers need to determine whether something was eligible or not if it hadn't been submitted, or sent to them with the intention of it being submitted? Genuine question. I'm also quite sure I read that attempts had been made to submit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

Why would party lawyers need to determine whether something was eligible or not if it hadn't been submitted, or sent to them with the intention of it being submitted? Genuine question. I'm also quite sure I read that attempts had been made to submit it.


Well the report covers a period outside the remit the EHRC are investigating and was made for internal review. The party have already made their submissions to the EHRC ages ago as far as I know. As Paul Mason says it seems there are questions over who ordered the report and collated it and with what aim since Formby had already submitted the evidence they wanted to the EHRC. 
 

I’m assuming someone raised the possibility of sending this report to the EHRC but it was knocked back by the lawyers. Don’t know who or why. I only know what I’ve read above. 
 

I thought you were saying the EHRC have rejected the report though so was wondering where you read that as I haven’t seen it mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sugar Ape said:


Well the report covers a period outside the remit the EHRC are investigating and was made for internal review. The party have already made their submissions to the EHRC ages ago as far as I know. As Paul Mason says it seems there are questions over who ordered the report and collated it and with what aim since Formby had already submitted the evidence they wanted to the EHRC. 
 

I’m assuming someone raised the possibility of sending this report to the EHRC but it was knocked back by the lawyers. Don’t know who or why. I only know what I’ve read above. 
 

I thought you were saying the EHRC have rejected the report though so was wondering where you read that as I haven’t seen it mentioned. 

No, my understanding was party lawyers blocked it.

 

Here's where I read it was intended for EHRC:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

No, my understanding was party lawyers blocked it.

 

Here's where I read it was intended for EHRC:

 


 

I guess we’ll see when the independent investigation concludes who commissioned it and for what reason, which is why Starmer and Rayner have made that one of the aims of the investigation. 
 

If Mason is right and the leadership and NEC knew nothing about it then it does raise interesting questions over who ordered it and under what authority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

On the bright side surely the only way for Labour now is up, this has to be as low as it can possibly go, completely dysfunctional and unelectable. It’s genuinely sad to see.

We've been here before.

 

 

You can walk my path
You can wear my shoes
Learn to talk like me and be an angel too
But maybe you ain't never gonna feel this way
You ain't never gonna know me, but I know you
I'm singing it now
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

We've been here before.

 

 

You can walk my path
You can wear my shoes
Learn to talk like me and be an angel too
But maybe you ain't never gonna feel this way
You ain't never gonna know me, but I know you
I'm singing it now
 


I think the lyrics of another 90s song hold more meaning. 
 

Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
(I'm the Scatman)
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
 

Ba-da-ba-da-ba-be bop bop bodda bope
Bop ba bodda bope
Be bop ba bodda bope
Bop ba bodda 
Ba-da-ba-da-ba-be bop ba bodda bope
Bop ba bodda bope
Be bop ba bodda bope
Bop ba bodda bope

 

Really makes you think doesn’t it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also contains un-redacted names and personal details. 


Someone may be in a lot of shit for releasing the report. Fines are quite serious for this type of data breach  

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • Blimey, you don't ask for much. Would you like to see the return of Ceefax next season too? 
    • £35m + anything up to £200k a week on wages for a player who's available about half the time, has never played in a league as tough as this one, would have zero resale value, and plays in a position where we are already well stocked.   Given what they've achieved, if Klopp, Edwards and the rest of them are definitely going for it, I'm going to trust them. But on the face if it, it looks like the exact sort of stupid deal we don't do. I've got to be honest, it looks like a total waste of money.
    • Pretty much captures most of my feelings. I was pretty confident when the team news cam out and after 20 minutes I could only see one winner, and it wasn't City. We were much the better team early on, could/should have had a couple and they looked really nervous at the back. We were getting behind them regularly in that phase. I don't necessarily agree with the Ederson handball thingy, but he definitely gained an advantage and the episode once agan underlines the handball anomaly i.e. accidental handball gets treated differently when it's about scoring a goal versus stopping one.  I agree with Klopp that the main difference was about using the moments, they did, we didn't. I think the reason we didn't was that, although the effort and willingness was there,  we didn't have the sharpness and focus in the head to exploit the moments. That's the only way I could explain the stupid decisions (Robbo going awol, Trent throwing it in straight to to one of theirs) or the complete lapses in concentration - Sadio letting the ball run past him when the goal was gaping. Anthony Taylor lived down to expectations - we were still winning the ball back from them high up late in the game - only for him to give them soft free kicks. Taylor or Tyler, can't decide who's the bigger cunt.   Let's hope we get our heads sorted out for the remaining games, it would be such a shame for this brilliant season to fizzle out in a whimper.
    • Not a good overall outlook on this, considering the age profile and his injury record. The age element is far less important if he's available all the time, but that's a big if. There's already immense frustration with Naby Keita's constant stuttering start-stop record since he joined, could we, or Klopp deal with another like him?    If he signs, on let's say a 3 year deal, with presumably big wages, what prospect is there of him having any resale value at 32/33? Again, that all hinges on his injury record, but we wait and see.
    • The good old days....I used  to put a different one up every year...  
       
        Luckily I’d stopped by this point         
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • Football Betting Site Betway
×