Numero Veinticinco

2 minutes ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

Rarely can I be arsed to venture into the cess pits which are the political threads on the forum, but I've yet to hear anything which Corbyn has said which was anti-Semitic.

There’s a reason for that. 

Okay, I’m done. You clearly are, and to say you’re not isn’t true. I don’t want be called disingenuous for recognising the truth. 

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I find your approach - ignoring the facts and trumpeting the tabloid headlines - disappointing: I thought you weren't that gullible and lazy.

Im not ignoring the facts. I’m including them from the report. You’re ignoring the bull of report. It’s because I’m not gullible and I’m not lazy that I’m using the reports to form my view. 

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's just bollocks. The ECHR Report acknowledged improvements (when a Corbyn ally became General Secretary).  Far from ignoring the problem, he was specifically censured by the EHRC for getting too involved in it.

A good summary of the report in full.

I genuinely find your approach to this utterly bizarre. 

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's bullshit to suggest there was a massive problem of anti-Semitism and it's bullshit to suggest that there have been massive improvements.

What I suggested was that what was broken under Corbyn was fixed under Starmer. That’s why special measures have been lifted. That’s just clear from the report and the measures taken since. The broken system that was left unfixed and recommendations ignored by his leadership have now been very thoroughly fixed. That’s a massive improvement. 

29 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

In what world would Labour Party members in Islington North not select Corbyn? The only thing stopping them is interference from the Leader's Office. 

 

As for the other bit, we'll just have to disagree on the definition of "nuts".

There is no world in which they wouldn’t select Corbyn. I agree with you on that. Not only that but I think they should have to chose him every single time there’s a general election. However.l, under Corbyn they brought in new selection rules surrounding long lists and short lists, they wanted this to have control and force out the centre. It wasn’t a horrific abuse to democracy in their opinion then when they agreed it. It’s only horrific now it’s being used against them. 

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

Might be for you, not so great for him, or doesn't he count?.

 

 

Gawd, not this tripe again

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Oh great. Rachel's doing the old Maggie Thatcher tribute act nonsense. Probably to justify her brand of upcoming austerity. She'll be shopping for the cameras down the fruit and veg market next. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there some connection between the screenshots of Reeves and the comments made on QT? 

40 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

 

 

Socialism 

This comment you keep making in response to me responding to Gnasher 'socialism'. I mean, I'm obviously as thick as pigshit and a Tory - these are things I've learned from illiterate liars during my time here - but when I learned about political ideology at university, there was nothing about not giving your view on the values of an individual, especially one that keeps lying about you, insulting you, threatening you, and insulting your family. Thanks for teaching me this lesson. Fine, I'm not a socialist. What now? It's capitalistic to insult people? Fine, none of this is real or bothers me at all. 

It's interesting though, you've never picked up anybody else and responded with 'socialism' in response to anything they said. I wonder why that is. Well, I know why it is, I just wonder if you do. 

I look forward to a laughing emjoi or a burp or whatever mindless, unthinking drivel is sent in response to this. I was hoping for a sensible response to the point you made about you wanting poor people to pay for rich people's internet. Socialism. 

Great news that the EHRC recognise the massive improvements made under Starmer, fixing what was so badly broken under Corbyn. A some what credible organisation. 

Some of the most horrible cunts on the Earth. I bet that’s an interesting ranking table. 

Really looking forward to him being PM. The salty tears are going to be running wild. 

Oh, yes. Good point. 

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Go watch some Kling ons whilst sipping beans from a ludicrously overpriced coffee machine yer blert.

So nothing then, just more blownhard nonsense. Nothing except that I once said that I wanted a nice coffee machine? 

Dirty lying garbage human. 

1 minute ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

The fact it's a vigil just compounds their stupidity. He's a lawyer, the ex-head of the CPS. He knows better than anyone that he, as the leader of a political party, can't pass comment on an ongoing murder case. To comment on this case now, over other unsolved murders, could only be because she's trans. So to do so would be him implying that he believes that was a factor, which isn't proven yet, and could prejudice a trial.

Honestly mate, I’m done with them all. It’s baying mob idiocy. There’s so many people who have a hateful mix of ignorance and arrogance. Of course, you could sit each one down and go through Starmer’s career and tell them about the pro-bono cases and show why he was knighted for it, but it’s pissing in the wind. Truth is just not important to so many people now. 

Just now, Gnasher said:

 

Truth hurts. 

You have no idea what you’re talking about. In what way am I posh? You say it but never back anything up. You’re just a filthy liar. I’m not hurt by anything you say, I just think you’re a disgusting subhuman. 

9 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Fucking insensitive morons.

 

I absolutely support the vigils taking place for her, but to use one to shout abuse at Starmer? For what exactly? His hateful anti-trans rhetoric.? For not intervening when he saw her getting stabbed?

 

Or for getting shot of Corbyn today? 

Yeah, it’s fucking weird. Some people just don’t have a clue. Most of those will likely have no idea why they’re repeating that. 

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

You're wasting your time. Posh lad has no understanding of the everyday problems faced by ordinary people.

You horrible fucking cunt. 

1 hour ago, cloggypop said:

 

Free wifi would be massively important for the people that couldn't afford it of course. 

Yes, and if the policy was to cover the cost of internet for those who couldn’t afford it, it would have been a much better policy in my opinion. It wasn’t though, hence the criticism. Though, as a nasty Tory sort of course, I prefer to redistribute wealth from the wealthiest to those that need it most. I don’t like the idea of either taxing people through income, VAT, NI or, as with the 2019 plan, through accumulation of billions debt and then paying for things like internet for people earning lots of money. 

4 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

 
Not a cult…

Coming from a cultist, that’s really weird. 

19 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

A big “fuck you” to crooked Kier. 

What a load of nonsense about democratic freedoms. Ridiculous. As for his suggestion, I’m not sure Starmer will be taking much advice on how to run the party from the guy who is responsible for it being driven into the ground, broken and in flames, and suffering it’s biggest lost in the better part of a hundred years. 
 

Ego. 

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

What's the difference between

 - (Good) Constituencies should be allowed to select their own candidates 

and 

- (Bad) Mandatory reselection?

 

 

 

Why is it bad? I support mandatory reselection. The point here is that he won’t make the short list, surely? Again, this isn’t something that bothered them until it’s used against their interest. This cry of ‘democratic freedoms’ is nonsense. 
 

14 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It was so, so obvious that Labour were going to get wiped out in 2017, yet they made their biggest gains in ages.

 

He was the (twice) democratically elected party leader doing his job of leading the party. To pretend that that is somehow working against the party is just fucking nuts; if the other stuff you've posted today is wackier than that, I'm glad I haven't read it.

It’s not nuts, it’s obvious and he did it anyway. No amount of bluster will avoid that. 

8 minutes ago, A Red said:

Why doesn't he start the Socialist Labour Party? That would be some legacy if it took off, looks like he would take a few off here with him.

Well, one already exists. One of their key beliefs is the sort of thing Brown and Starmer have put forward for the radical economic localism and devolution of powers to communities. It also supports exiting the EU, which Starmer has pledged not rejoin. 
 

Maybe Socialist Labour can rejoin Labour and the Socialists from Labour can leave for not being socialist enough. Funny thing is, the wider population don’t seem to give a fuck about any of this nonsense. Seems to me that it’s a few thousand disgruntled Corbyn supports making noise. Easily ignored, though kinda funny. You would think they’d have to question the integrity of Clive Lewis, Diane Abbott, et al, supporting putting a right wing Tory liar like Starmer into number 10. 
 

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I stumbled across this from Momentum.

And I saw some twat had retweeted it with "Proscribe them" - on the basis of the terrible anti-Labour views in that tweet. Now, I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but the "proscribe them" cunt uses this as his profile pic.

 

So I agree with Momentum that they should be allowed to pick their own candidate, that should happen each election, in my opinion (and, formerly at least, theirs) but it’s not their democratic right. Whoever the pob-alike is callling for them to be proscribed, well, he is free to a view even if that view is plainly fucking idiotic. The problem is, mandatory reselection and vetted lists are what they wanted. They wanted to oust the centrists and put left wingers in there. Now it’s being used for this. Something about cakes and eating it. 
 

11 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The fuck?

I thought that was actually not that controversial, considering some of the things I’ve said today. It was so, so obvious that he couldn’t win an election. Going into an election knowing you’re going to get hammered isn’t doing the party any good. He should have passed the torch while he still could influence who the next leader was. The SCG group absolutely fucked left wing politics for years. 
 

2 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Going to be interesting too see what he does.

 

By the looks of it he still has massive support in islington.

He’ll run against Labour. He ran against the Party and country’s best interests in 2019 and I think his ego and sense of injustice will see him run. I think he’ll probably win, though obviously as somebody who actually wants some left leaning policies in place next time, I’ll be hoping Labour win Islington.