Keir Starmer

[lifetime fan]

14 minutes ago, aRdja said:

That’s not a good look for Keir at all. She wasn’t even given the opportunity to apologise! Chilling.
 

I asked to issue a press statement and to discuss it with Keir, so we could sort this out. But when he did call me, he had made his decision.

She was asked to remove the tweet, she refused (still hasn’t) so was sacked. 
 

Tough shit. 

[aRdja]

7 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

She was asked to remove the tweet, she refused (still hasn’t) so was sacked. 
 

Tough shit. 

After some discussion regarding whether to delete the original tweet and tweet the clarification separately, or to quote the original tweet, I was advised to add it to my original tweet so the context would be clear. That is exactly what I did.

[Captain Turdseye]

24 minutes ago, aRdja said:

That’s not a good look for Keir at all. She wasn’t even given the opportunity to apologise! Chilling.
 

I asked to issue a press statement and to discuss it with Keir, so we could sort this out. But when he did call me, he had made his decision.

It’s a bit snide like. “Chilling” is pushing it a little. 

[Jairzinho]

Comparable with the night of the long knives, for me.

[cloggypop]

I'm getting flashbacks to Trotsky and an ice pick. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero said:

You didn’t see anything controversial about the link between Mossad and George Floyd’s murder? Fair enough, you’re not a politician who is expected to know better. Even then, she still hasn’t deleted it. Ah well, she’s gone. I just hope she shuts up about it now. 

I didn't read it as a literal "Mossad - by which I mean The Jews - ordered a hit on George Floyd".  I read it (as I think it was intended) as a way of illustrating that racism and violence are part of globalised capitalism, by pointing out the fact that state agents of one racist system have provided training to state agents of another. The reference to the methods that killed George Floyd struck me more as a rhetorical device than any direct, literal accusation - and certainly not the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that some people have claimed.

 

There are probably lots of other lines in that interview which, if you took them out of context and framed them in a way they were never intended, would also seem a bit off. That's why I always think it's best to leave words in their context and judge their meaning on that basis. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Numero said:

 

Ick.

 

Here's the rest of the interview, some of which is actually quite encouraging, if anybody wants to look a little bit deeper.

 

 

Fair enough.  Piers Morgan is a twat, though. And so is the Mirror headline writer who decided to lead with fucking press-ups.

[torahboy]

 

An inaccuracy about restraint methods taught by the IDF to American poilice is not anti semitism - it's a mistake.

Starmer's reaction to this mistake was ridiculous. Of course, it has less to do with banishing anti semitism and more to do with banishing the left from the party, but it's still ridiculous. Now he's going to have a couple of years of infighting, allowing the fourth reich on the opposite benches to establish a new capitalist order and further fuck the country. Mr Forensic has set out his priorities.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Jesus.

 

I don't know what question Starmer was replying to, so I can't comment on the stuff about defunding the Police, but if he thinks that BLM is limited to  just "a moment" to reflect on the murder of George Floyd, then he's been asleep for a month. 

 

Still, it's not great when you win the approval of one of the country's most prominent racists.

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Depressing summary of why Labour - and the country - is fucked.

 

 

[Strontium]

I always thought Labour policy was to increase police funding. If Starmer is going to be criticised for sticking to Labour Party policy, we really are in crazytown.

[Captain Howdy]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I always thought Labour policy was to increase police funding. If Starmer is going to be criticised for sticking to Labour Party policy, we really are in crazytown.

We’ve been in Crazytown quite a while now. In other news Johnson appears to be spending like a drunken sailor. Not what I was expecting if I’m honest.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I always thought Labour policy was to increase police funding. If Starmer is going to be criticised for sticking to Labour Party policy, we really are in crazytown.

I'm not judging him on what he said about "defund" because I didn't hear the question he was answering. It would have been better, though, to acknowledge the BLM call for more investment in the things that keep crime rates lower. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

This is so stupid. 
 

Okay. My new slogan is ‘defund the NHS’. By which I mean ‘invest in preventative medicine, exercise equipment, health clubs’. Who is with me? AoT, shall we change our avatars to ‘defund the NHS’? You with me, or don’t you support preventative medicine? I can’t wait for us to all meet up in Parliament square and chant ‘defund the NHS’. 

 

Defund the police doesn’t mean anything other than defund the police. It comes from the US where they want to take money away from rich police forces who are ripping through black people’s lives. 
 

Anybody in the UK who says ‘defund the police’ is a fucking moron. Anybody who says defund the police but means ‘spend money on other things’ is a moron. I spent fucking years opposed to Tory cuts to the police, I’m fucked if I’m going to stop now. I wouldn’t vote for a party who wants to defund the police, and I won’t support a movement that started years ago as a statement against oppression and now spends its time tweeting about Israel and defunding the police force. 
 

Twitter and Facebook have a lot to answer for. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Fair enough.  Piers Morgan is a twat, though. And so is the Mirror headline writer who decided to lead with fucking press-ups.

Yes, both Morgan and Mirror are twats, but you chose to run with a tabloid headline and make out as if it’s the centrepiece of his political outlook. Think about why you’d be inclined to do that, mate. It certainly isn’t your normal approach. I’d suggest there some confirmatory bias going on. Taking that one line response and firing a ‘should be challenging for PM’ shot is an example of what opponents of Labour have been doing for years. As for challenging for the PM job, it seems like he is the first person in a long time who is making any serious headway on that front. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 hours ago, aRdja said:

That’s not a good look for Keir at all. She wasn’t even given the opportunity to apologise! Chilling.
 

I asked to issue a press statement and to discuss it with Keir, so we could sort this out. But when he did call me, he had made his decision.

Except in her original twitter statement she confirmed that she refused to take it down. Chilling stuff. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 hours ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Kier has been championed for the comments he made about BLM earlier today.... 

 

By Nigel Farage. 

 

6 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Still, it's not great when you win the approval of one of the country's most prominent racists.

 

Guys, look at what you’re doing. Seriously, look at how you’ve changed your tune since this type of thing happened to Corbyn. This type of guilt by association tactics was wrong when it happened to Corbyn, and I said so. Now you’re the ones doing it. You’re turning into the people you’ve decried as disgusting. You’re both much smarter than this. 

 

6 hours ago, torahboy said:

 

An inaccuracy about restraint methods taught by the IDF to American poilice is not anti semitism - it's a mistake.

Starmer's reaction to this mistake was ridiculous. Of course, it has less to do with banishing anti semitism and more to do with banishing the left from the party, but it's still ridiculous. Now he's going to have a couple of years of infighting, allowing the fourth reich on the opposite benches to establish a new capitalist order and further fuck the country. Mr Forensic has set out his priorities.

Banishing the left from the party. Good stuff. As accurate as talking about the IDF. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I always thought Labour policy was to increase police funding. If Starmer is going to be criticised for sticking to Labour Party policy, we really are in crazytown.

Is there a worse way of saying ‘fund social programs’ than ‘defund the police’? Maybe ‘defund social programs’ is worse, but it’s close. Seriously, if their argument is ‘invest in youth services, mental health, education, jobs, and housing’, then I’m right there with them, but trying to convey that message with the slogan ‘defund the police’ is absolutely fucking retarded. Miliband and Corbyn’s Labour spend years  opposing defunding police, even saying that May should resign over cuts to the police budget, now Starmer says he thinks it’s ridiculous, he is akin to the devil, a racist, a Blairite, a right winger (seriously, the irony of calling somebody a right winger for not willing to defund one of the most important social programs in the country is... excruciating), and a con man for taking the knee. Defunding the police is almost the least Labour thing a Labour leader could do. 

 

GET A FUCKING GRIP. 

[skend04]

I'm just fascinated by how BLMUK thought "defund the police" would sound acceptable here in the UK where it's been happening to the detriment of policing generally? 

 

If they wanted to go down this route of catchy 3 word slogans, that seems to work with the more lazier of voters, then they could have chosen better ways to ask for funding of services, communities and educational programs. 

[Rico1304]

25 minutes ago, skend04 said:

I'm just fascinated by how BLMUK thought "defund the police" would sound acceptable here in the UK where it's been happening to the detriment of policing generally? 

 

If they wanted to go down this route of catchy 3 word slogans, that seems to work with the more lazier of voters, then they could have chosen better ways to ask for funding of services, communities and educational programs. 

It’s not as if you’ve got police forces over here buying armoured cars and tooling them up like Robocop. The only time anyone has tried to buy anything like that the country was in uproar and it turned out it would have been illegal to use it on the streets.  
 

It’s almost like the US and U.K. are very different with different policing needs and priorities.  We need more police as well as more mental health services. 

[Antynwa]

Knife crime in Liverpool is an absolute curse - The last thing we need to do is defund the police. 

 

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

So, I just had a brief look into BLMUK. Erm, interesting. So in reply to the ‘defund the police’ thing they said that it just means ‘investing in’ and listed some public services and projects. Except when you look at their gofundme page, from which they’ve raised over a million quid, they state that they will spend the money developing and delivering ‘strategies to abolish the police’. They've also called for the closure of all prisons and detention centres. So that’s abolish the police and close prisons. So the end of law and order, essentially. Am I racist if I say ‘no thanks’? Is Starmer a right winger ‘cop in a suit’ if he says no thanks? This obviously should raise alarm bells with anybody other than far-left anarchists.
 

I thought I’d dig a little deeper, just to see what the deal is. There’s surprisingly little transparency, or information that I can see.  Quoting one article, ‘So who is behind the group? And how were those who dreamt up its policy goals appointed? Bizarrely, Black Lives Matter UK is entirely anonymous, offering no transparency on who controls it or where its money will be spent. Despite having existed since July 2016, when its Twitter and Facebook accounts were created, it has no physical address or website. It has no formal governing structure or constitution, no chief executive, chairman or board of trustees. It is not registered as a charity or as a non-profit organisation. It has never filed accounts and its spending has never been audited’.

 

What I do find strange is some of the stuff that they talk about. In a wider political discussion I agree with some of the things they say and some I don’t. It’s slightly jarring to read on their social media that their agenda seems to stretch way beyond anything to do with black lives mattering, and into opposition of ‘enbyphobia, ableism, eugenics, and stigmatisation of addiction’, support for cabin crew pay strikes, veganism, and Amazon workers, and criticism of David Attenborough over commentary of Dynasties, and they even took aim at Oxfam as ‘big charities are nothing more than oppressors’. Hmn. And of course, the destruction of capitalism. 

 

So the question I have is, is the BLMUK focus about equality and security for black people or are they a bunch of radicals who are using the BLM as a canard and as a political tool. I’m not saying they’re definitely cranks, I’m just saying let’s be careful. If it’s really just a few lads taking advantage of a global situation and trying to further their political agenda, I’m good, thanks. 

[Section_31]

The defund the police stuff is more trendy liberal student patter like what I mentioned further up the thread as the type of stuff which is now used interchangeby with 'socialism' or 'the left' but which is neither, a few Momentum members might be all over that, but good look trying to sell any of it to the working class people of the 'red wall' which Labour must take back, or middle England which they must acquire. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Numero said:

This is so stupid. 
 

Okay. My new slogan is ‘defund the NHS’. By which I mean ‘invest in preventative medicine, exercise equipment, health clubs’. Who is with me? AoT, shall we change our avatars to ‘defund the NHS’? You with me, or don’t you support preventative medicine? I can’t wait for us to all meet up in Parliament square and chant ‘defund the NHS’. 

 

Defund the police doesn’t mean anything other than defund the police. It comes from the US where they want to take money away from rich police forces who are ripping through black people’s lives. 
 

Anybody in the UK who says ‘defund the police’ is a fucking moron. Anybody who says defund the police but means ‘spend money on other things’ is a moron. I spent fucking years opposed to Tory cuts to the police, I’m fucked if I’m going to stop now. I wouldn’t vote for a party who wants to defund the police, and I won’t support a movement that started years ago as a statement against oppression and now spends its time tweeting about Israel and defunding the police force. 
 

Twitter and Facebook have a lot to answer for. 

I never said I was a fan of the slogan. It's spot on in a lot of US contexts, but doesn't work over here. We do need to rethink policing, to reinforce accountability and rebuild trust with the communities they're supposed to serve. In many cases, that probably means increasing funding.

 

(That's why I made a point of not criticising Starmer for his anti-defund rant.)

 

As for BLM UK tweeting about Palestine, I don't know whether they raised it spontaneously or someone else brought it up, but it would be a bit hypocritical if their stance was "we oppose anti-black racism in the UK, but we're not arsed about other forms of racism elsewhere".