Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

The right wingers, with their love of right wing policies that mirror centre left policies. 

[Gnasher]

The guardian pulls a Bell cartoon that ridicules the Labour hierarchy treatment of Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Apparently the first time a cartoon in the paper has been spiked.

 

 

 

https://www.belltoons.co.uk/bellworks/index.php/if/2020/8266-251120_WHIPLASH

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Corbyn had every right to reply to the report. It was his name that was being tarnished. What else would have been the point of the report? This Is Britain not N Korea.

The point of the report was to investigate Corbyn Labour’s response to the antisemitic complaints against members of the party. You say there was nothing wrong with the response, but his response and interviews were completely unacceptable in other’s opinion. This is beside the original point thst doing nothing wouldn’t have halted anything. I think people are pissed and making reason why it was the reasoning was bad. They need to find a new line other than the ‘this is creating/extending disunity’. He had every right to respond to it, as did Labour have every right to respond to his response 

[Gnasher]

 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Numero said:

The point of the report was to investigate Corbyn Labour’s response to the antisemitic complaints against members of the party. You say there was nothing wrong with the response, but his response and interviews were completely unacceptable in other’s opinion. This is beside the original point thst doing nothing wouldn’t have halted anything. I think people are pissed and making reason why it was the reasoning was bad. They need to find a new line other than the ‘this is creating/extending disunity’. He had every right to respond to it, as did Labour have every right to respond to his response 

Sorry you say Corbyns response was unacceptable in others opinion, whose? And why was the Corbyn opinion on the response unacceptable?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

And the millions of people who don’t give a fuck about Palestine will continue their lives not giving a fuck about Palestine.  

Yay!  Fuck morality!

[AngryOfTuebrook]

21 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Sorry you say Corbyns response was unacceptable in others opinion, whose? And why was the Corbyn opinion on the response unacceptable?

Corbyn's response mentioned, truthfully, that the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour has been exaggerated for political gain by politicians and the media, and that this has had a negative impact on Jewish people.  That much should be perfectly acceptable. 

 

Liars pretend that he claimed the EHRC report exaggerated the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour  (which would have been unacceptable).

[Numero Veinticinco]

19 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Sorry you say Corbyns response was unacceptable in others opinion, whose? And why was the Corbyn opinion on the response unacceptable?

Well, the Labour Party for a start. Mine too. His response rejected findings, it lacked an apology, and it attempted to absolve him of his part in the mess. We’ve been over this. He also chose the worst possible time to talk about the scale of the problem being dramatically overstated. Not only did it have nothing to do with what was in the report, which was about his Party’s response to the Complaints, but it was clearly done as an attempt to belittle criticism and deflect blame. Who the fuck reads that report and comes out with ‘I wasn’t part of the problem, some of the findings are bogus, and it’s trumped up’. Of course people were going to have a fucking issue with it. 
 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

Corbyn's response mentioned, truthfully, that the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour has been exaggerated for political gain by politicians and the media, and that this has had a negative impact on Jewish people.  That much should be perfectly acceptable. 

 

Liars pretend that he claimed the EHRC report exaggerated the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour  (which would have been unacceptable).

The exact issue is that he said it in a response to the ECHR report. You’ve added ‘in the party’ yourself, as did Gnasher. He was just talking about the scale of the problem being dramatically overstated by those inside and outside of the party for political gain. He did it in response to the report. You say it’s liars who claim he was talking about the ECHR, I’ve not seen that, but you’re doing the opposite and removing it from the context of what he was responding about 

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Corbyn's response mentioned, truthfully, that the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour has been exaggerated for political gain by politicians and the media, and that this has had a negative impact on Jewish people.  That much should be perfectly acceptable. 

 

Liars pretend that he claimed the EHRC report exaggerated the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour  (which would have been unacceptable).

Well said. The sad thing is some of them liars claim to support the labour party.

[Gnasher]

17 minutes ago, Numero said:

Well, the Labour Party for a start. Mine too. His response rejected findings, it lacked an apology, and it attempted to absolve him of his part in the mess. We’ve been over this. He also chose the worst possible time to talk about the scale of the problem being dramatically overstated. Not only did it have nothing to do with what was in the report, which was about his Party’s response to the Complaints, but it was clearly done as an attempt to belittle criticism and deflect blame. Who the fuck reads that report and comes out with ‘I wasn’t part of the problem, some of the findings are bogus, and it’s trumped up’. Of course people were going to have a fucking issue with it. 
 

 

Well some of the allegations were indeed as you put it 'bogus' and 'trumped up'. I believe Corbyn used the word "exaggerated" and he was telling the truth, the charge of labour party antisemitism were proved to be exaggerated or as you say 'trumped up'. I cant really see where the problem was, Starmer and Nicol seemed to look for problems and if you look hard enough you can usually find a few.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Well some of the allegations were indeed as you put it 'bogus' 

No, the findings of the report. 

[Dougie Do'ins]

2 hours ago, MegadriveMan said:

Yes, like what happened with the Dominic Cummings Bernard Castle fiasco or with the Pritti Patel bullying issue. However once Johnson had made it clear that they weren't being sacked, people moaned about it, but then have to move on. The same applied here. The Tories would have made a big deal of it for up to a week, but then would have had to move on.

 

As I've said before, Starmer is going to make himself unpopular amongst almost every demographic the way he is going.

I'm not sure being labelled a lying cunt like Cummings is, and a bully like Patel is, carries the same stigmatisation that being labelled a racist/anti Semite does. 

[Scooby Dudek]

The issue for me, is Corbyn responded to the report. This upset a lot of people and he was suspended from the party, pending investigation. 

That investigation took place and 5 NEC members voted unanimously to readmit Corbyn into the party. Due to the response of the usual suspects Starmer stepped in appease them and this was a mistake in my opinion. Starmer would have been totally justified in saying the investigation took place, then an independent vote and this is the outcome, I will not interfere in this process. This is what is now causing the problems and the continued disunity. It implies an investigation is irrelevant, as certain voices will be appeased to get the outcome they want, hence it is actually them who control who can and not be a member of the party. That does not bode well.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Numero said:

The exact issue is that he said it in a response to the ECHR report. You’ve added ‘in the party’ yourself, as did Gnasher. He was just talking about the scale of the problem being dramatically overstated by those inside and outside of the party for political gain. He did it in response to the report. You say it’s liars who claim he was talking about the ECHR, I’ve not seen that, but you’re doing the opposite and removing it from the context of what he was responding about 

I didn't add "in the party" at all.  Nor have I, in any way, removed anything from its context. Read my post.

 

For reference, here's what Corbyn actually posted. There can be no doubt that his comment about exaggeration for political gain is absolutely true.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

You literally did both things in your post above. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 minutes ago, Numero said:

You literally did both things in your post above. 

No.

Read it.

[Rico1304]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Yay!  Fuck morality!

So, he’s immoral for not going? I’m assuming you’re ripping up your membership if the leader is immoral.  Labour really are in a bad way.  
 

Or it’s a load of old fucking bollocks. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

So, he’s immoral for not going? I’m assuming you’re ripping up your membership if the leader is immoral.  Labour really are in a bad way.  
 

Or it’s a load of old fucking bollocks. 

No.

 

Your response (if I understand it correctly) was "only a minority of voters care about oppression and suffering, so the party leadership needn't give a fuck either". It's a classic Tory attitude and it stinks.

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No.

Read it.

I read it, you cocky gobshite. No matter how many times I read your slack-jawed dribbling, the content isn’t going to change. Now, you fucking read it. 
 

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

truthfully, that the scale of anti-Semitism in Labour has been exaggerated

Don’t tell me to read your post, pretending it’s not there. I know you Corbynista fundamentalist weirdos live in a different reality, but don’t expect me to live there too. 
 

You even posted what he actually said, so maybe reading that, rather than just pinning it to the alter, might be a good start. 

 

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No.

 

Your response (if I understand it correctly) was "only a minority of voters care about oppression and suffering, so the party leadership needn't give a fuck either". It's a classic Tory attitude and it stinks.

No it’s not, it’s more along the lines of ‘just because Palestine is a pet project for a small number of Labour voters it shouldn’t be allowed to dominate the leadership so much that being seen not to be doing exactly what that minority want is a stick to beat him with’. 

Stop hurting dogs

what about cats

oh I like them too

No you don’t, you didn’t mention them you fucking cat hater 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

29 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No it’s not, it’s more along the lines of ‘just because Palestine is a pet project for a small number of Labour voters it shouldn’t be allowed to dominate the leadership so much that being seen not to be doing exactly what that minority want is a stick to beat him with’. 

Stop hurting dogs

what about cats

oh I like them too

No you don’t, you didn’t mention them you fucking cat hater 

 

Do you think that a Labour leader should support victims of racist violence and oppression? Or do you think it's OK to publicly side with the perpetrators of racist violence and oppression on the one day a year set aside by the UN to show solidarity with their victims?

 

To go with your animal analogy, if there is an international day against animal cruelty, do you think that attending a meeting of the fur industry would be a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Good? Or bad?

Take your time. 

 

[sir roger]

Ha Ha, Palestine domination of the Labour leadership .

 

Will nobody think of poor Israel down to its last 98 Labour LFI MPs and Peers., and Starmer on speed dial with a Sir Keir answerphone message that just says 'OK, I'll do it '

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Do you think that a Labour leader should support victims of racist violence and oppression? Or do you think it's OK to publicly side with the perpetrators of racist violence and oppression on the one day a year set aside by the UN to show solidarity with their victims?

 

To go with your animal analogy, if there is an international day against animal cruelty, do you think that attending a meeting of the fur industry would be a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Good? Or bad?

Take your time. 

 

I think he shouldn’t have his diary dominated by the pet project of the far left in the party.  The project that the general public couldn’t give a flying fuck about, particularly the ones in the north of England who abandoned Labour at the last election.  
 

What event is he missing?  Is there even anything he’s turned down? Or is he out building bridges after the party were found to be quite a bit racist?  
 

You analogy was wank by the way. 

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Ha Ha, Palestine domination of the Labour leadership .

 

Will nobody think of poor Israel down to its last 98 Labour LFI MPs and Peers., and Starmer on speed dial with a Sir Keir answerphone message that just says 'OK, I'll do it '

Corbyn fan boy bemoaning numbers of MPs. Love it.