AngryOfTuebrook

Mirror, Record and Echo are all part of the same group, so it's probably unsurprising to see them running the same story from the same source.

Did you miss the various Commons debates on Yemen? Or the ongoing criticism of Burma over the Rohingya crisis? Or the politicians speaking out against Turkey's attack on Kurds in Syria? Or the international outcry against the attacks in Eastern Ghouta? etc.

Israel and Palestine have long since agreed a "two-state solution". Ever since the agreement, Israel has worked against its implementation by taking criminal actions - the siege of Gaza, the Wall, the Settler programme, etc. - to ensure that no Palestinian state is ever allowed to exist. I'm pretty sure that I've been on protest marches which involve small acts of civil disobedience, such as a symbolic march across a fence that shouldn't be there. We were able to do this because the UK, for all its flaws, is not a racist terrorist state that murders protestors.

And it deserves to be met with sniper fire?

Fallon, Patel, Green, Greening and Rudd. Five Cabinet resignations in 6 months. Strong and stable.

Responsibility for the Windrush malarkey should go three ways: Rudd, her predecessor and her boss.

Human shield deployed.

Klavan's doing alright.

If anybody does that, it is indeed daft.

And all parties need to investigate it and root it out.

Meanwhile, the inherently racist Tory Party is still turning a deaf ear to Muslim Council of Britain's repeated call to investigate the widespread Islamophobia in the party. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/7xdyqb/the-conservative-party-needs-to-deal-with-its-islamophobia-problem

Just worth pointing out that it's not an established, objective fact that Wadsworth knew Smeeth was Jewish: she says he knew; he says he didn't.

And yet he was one of the leaders of the first Labour Black Socialist Society in 1993.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_Black_Sections Arf.

https://labourlist.org/2018/04/marc-wadsworth-expelled-from-the-labour-party/

It shows that Smeeth claims he was told that. I'm disinclined to assume that Ruth "left in tears/thousands of abusive tweets" is a reliable source.

You're arguing that only the state can restrict a person's freedom of speech. You are demonstrably wrong.

Is that it? You're just going to resort to clichés from your random smart-arsery generator? Not a cult. Consistency kids. Christ. Hahaha. I love this place. etc.

This?https://twitter.com/JeremyDuns/status/989095177255079936?s=09 That's not analysis. That's just a summary of the spurious and disingenuous allegations levelled against Wadsworth and Corbyn.

What has the state got to do with anything? You are the only person who has mentioned the state.

Again, I'm not sure that the party did say it was racist. I didn't say that you think it was racist, so untwist your knickers. My question was why you think Wadsworth should accept "consequences" for what he said. The fact that you accept that Wadsworth didn’t say anything racist makes it more bizarre that you're happy with restrictions to his freedom of speech.

Nothing he said merited "consequences". Nothing was anti-Semitic or racist (and I haven't seen the full judgement yet, but I thought that the charge was "bringing the party into disrepute" not racism.) Are you not a wee bit concerned about restrictions to free speech? Are you happy that potentially any expression of any opinions or statements of fact could be deemed worthy of "consequences"? It is a perverse and damaging decision to punish Wadsworth and it's odd to see you and Stronts defending it.

Check out @mrbenwexler’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/mrbenwexler/status/990591198657036289?s=09

There you go again with the snide innuendo of anti-Semitism. As set out in the testimony of a Jewish person who was actually there, nobody but Smeeth thought that anything Wadsworth said was anti-Semitic. And the behaviour he complained about wasn’t an allegation of some dark, secretive conspiracy: he was complaining about what was happening openly, in that room on that day.

I want you to explain your post about "that's not what free speech means" because it makes no sense.