The PC brigade have gone overboard and do seem to say that those who were verbally attacked should feel offended even if they weren't. It's a bit like a joke that BLM have reconsidered their entry requirements and allowed black people to join:
Perhaps Aaron Mate will save me having to read the report. Chris Williamson has been vindicated. Now he lost his income as a Member of Parliament over this and suffered from the most gross abuse from the Tories inside Parliament for his political views and of course is no longer able to help his constitutients and that part of the Labour Party. Is he going to get compensation? He is also speaking about something I have heard others talk about which is that the EHRC is not quite such an Independent group and apparently has itself being accused of Institutional Racism by black and Muslim organisations and many of its commissionairs have close ties to the Conservative Party. - Apparently Corbyn's Mother was there helping Jews at the battle of Cable street! Chris puts the reason for the purge on Corbyn firmly on his position to Palestine. Aaron is saying that the report only talks of there being two cases on unlawful antisemitism. Is that actually correct? I was understanding that that was that the Party did not deal with properly. Chris says it had 6 people at the beginning but 4 of them were found not guilty. The argument that Starmer makes about Corbyn is that he went against the findings of the report but there is no way that that is true especially if the above is true. He pointed out the massive overstatement included in the media - he did not say in the report and if this is what the report said he clearly would not have needed to as the report it would appear, agrees with him. Chris then turns to the other, non Israel reasons for working to destroy Corbyn like him being strong on wanting peace and disarmanet. That is the position Tony Benn had when he thought we should stay out of the EU. He thought we could use our position in the UN to work on that. The UK was a very different place in those days. Aaron goes on to talk about the leaks which have shown that there were people in the labour Party who were working to make sure it would not win the 2017 election. Without that and given how well they did we might well now be having a Corbyn led Labour Party and be in a massively different situation. They of course were interfering with Democracy. When you work to make sure your own pary loses you should not be in that Party. Now Sharmer's reaction to this was to leave it behind so that the party could come together. None of the named and shamed suspended. Williamson said that in his youth he worked against the National Front in an antinazi group or something. He also talks about the Jews in the Labour Party who are antizionist and how many of them were targeted as antisemites. That really is the nub of it. This has nothing to do with antisemitism but is about politics which in the UK we are supposed to be a free society concerning. Anyway here is the video
Benefits with no security of life & property. Benefits of a food exporting region now starving. You are truly, funny. Moi
There was no security of life under apartheid either unless you were willing to give away your land to the devil. Africa was never a food exporting region yet had an abundance which is why the vultures and vampires began circling. You are truly not funny. Do they even have colleges in your village?
Afrikkkaners own the majority of land but constitute only 9% of the population. 75% of private farmland is owned by 9% (white) of the population. If there is a food shortage then it is a deliberate attempt by afrikkkaners to try and starve the majority. This comes as little surprise given the angst shown by Mandelas party the ANC over the very serious problem south africa has concerning the white millionaire elites in control of much of the economy.
Amazing how the atheist socialist left have replaced belief in sky fairies with worship of a perfect human savior, aka Dear Leader. The Protocols are considered by many to be an excellent account, would you consider someone endorsing the book antisemitic or not? By the way, Hobson calls Black Africans "lower races" in the book. Do you still think the author wasn't racist? Yep, this is how it begins. Some people are not really British, don't belong, just like some people were not really Germans and didn't belong. Unlike you, I've had family members imprisoned by the socialist left for being Zionists, I know very well how it begins and where this kind of statements lead. Throwing straw men at me won't make Corbyn any less antisemitic, unless you can prove that by definition antisemitism manifests itself through words only. I deeply regret that Corbyn lost the elections. Victory would have forced him and his circle to reveal their true nature. Nothing like real life experience to understand how identity politics and radical ideologies hurt literally everyone outside of the selected few at the top. However, defeat turned Corbyn into a martyr for the cause in the eyes of his disappointed fans. Legend replaces reality, wishful thinking trumps reason. The socialist left is deeply antisemitic everywhere in the world. The British socialist left is no exception. Here's an analysis from the moderate, Labour supporting, British left: https://hurryupharry.org/2020/10/29/corbyn-is-one-man-left-wing-antisemitism-is-a-tradition/
No, they will not. Never met any person who wanted to see Sth Africa collapse. We don't want our TV's to be full of horror stories - regardless of where it is.
When I first searched about this I found people saying he may not even have known that part was in. It apparently is about ten lines in a book which has been taught in Universities for years without anyone mentioning this. The Campaign Against Antisemitism was set up after your 2014 slaughter in Gaza. It is believed it is funded by Israel in an attempt to portray a country which has always been one of the lowest on antisemitism as one of the worst because people of the UK of every persuasion were disgusted with your actions against Gaza. Now to get back to your book which you are claiming proves Corbyn is an antisemite https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/02/jeremy-corbyn-hobsons-imperialism-and-antisemitism This is your fantasy and has nothing to do with what was going on. It belongs to you. If you had ever done even a fraction of the work Corbyn has done on prejudice you might have a voice but you are just slandering to fulfil your own needs. and here is your most rediculous bit of malicious propaganda. Yes, it is true the left in general do not support Israel because Israel is a far right country. It would be very peculiar if they did but that has nothing to do with antisemitism. Your own leader goes to visit the most far right countries in Europe, one being Hungary just a few weeks after they had put up a statue in memory of the man who sent Hungary's Jews to the Gas Chambers. Netanyahu visit them and told him how much he appreciated them when the Jews of Hungary were warning about rising antisemitism there. Did he say one word about that. No! So do not tell me your regime cares about antisemitism. Those in charge in Israel like antisemitism because that brings Jews where they and their biggest supporters Christian Zionists want them, Israel. Do you really believe that there are no left wing Jews and do you expect them to be drolling over a far right country? I supose you believe Corbyn does not serve any Jews. cont'dhttps://www.redpepper.org.uk/being-jewish-in-north-islington-labour-party/
Oh yes, you CAN be anti-self. A whole generation is anti-self, hating everything their civilization has achieved. The West can do no right, the thugs can do no wrong.
Personally I always thought his bigger crime was leading a campaign that didn't even pretend to present an electorally viable platform. Our Labor party did the same thing last election.
Yes, there's a few bad eggs in the Labor Party, but we are busy turning Britain into anther Venezuela - we will handle any antisemitism later.
I don't think that was it and I am not sure how ott he was offering. That it was though was certainly part of the propaganda. Pretty much everything the opposition, including the right of the Party could throw at him was, but two things have been put as the major reasons. One was that the papers got people to believe that the labour Party really was antisemitic as an institution when it was more antisemetic when Blair was PM. This was made more poignantly by the Chief Rabbi (who apparently does not represent many Jews) during the election campaign making a speech basically saying that if anyone voted for Laboour they were basically voting for Jews to be harmed. I think he went as far as saying that if people voted for labour they were voting for immorality. The second reason he seemed to lose was over Brexit. In the 2017 election he campaigned on staying by Brexit and getting a good deal. Had the Blairites of the Labour Party not be doing everything they could to get Labour to lose that election then we almost certainly would have had a Labour Party led by Corbyn ruling Britian since 2017. The right of the Labour Party stayed against him throughout. Antisemitism being their biggest ploy. However their pressure managed to get him to give a policy where people would get a second vote on Brexit. That according to many was why they did not vote Labour. The North of England which has some of the worst poverty in the UK and could have done best out of his policies voted for the first time for the Tories - because they were 'honouring' the Brexit vote. However I think you are touching on the possible real reason for the never ending anti Corbyn propaganda, which is that centrists will come together to keep Neo Liberalism regardless of the reality that in 2008 it showed itself to not be viable.
I think either commitment to Brexit or opposition to Brexit could have worked for him, but being on the fence with regard to such a significant event is untenable. I'm not sure if you've watched the BBC or Sky News recently, but your point of view is at least as represented as anyone else's. I respect Corbyn and would have liked to have him on my side of things - albeit probably not as party leader.
You are talking about what you think but having another vote on Brexit was what was least acceptable to voters. That is what a lot of people said in areas which had always voted for Labour but did not this time. I think his own position was what Labour said in 2017 which was to get a better deal than the Tories but to accept the vote. The other thing a lot of people said was that he was not a very nice person. Most people who know him say one thing you can say about him is that he is a very nice person. When asked why they thought he was not a nice person most could give no answer but that almost certainly was the smear campaign on him. I'd put your one as a trailing reason. I will be honest there was one thing right at the end that they suddenly promised something after the Tories refused and I thought 'what are they doing' as it did appear that they were prepared to throw the bus 'to get the vote' and some people did mention this but I do not think they would have been people who would have been all that interested in voting for him anyway. (This isn't really the subject of this thread) You are saying the BBC and Sky news are still talking about why Corbyn lost the election?! He, John McDonald and others believed the prime reason was over Brexit. I think he was pressured into doing it. When talking with Varoufakis at the Edinburgh Festival he said that he believed it was right to go with the vote and come out. Varoufakis agreed. He thought Corbyn would be a good voice for people in Europe to have as an alternative - though he also hoped Corbyn would bring the UK back to a changed EU. I would have to agree that he isn't the best 'leadership' material. Probably why he never aspired to it. However he does hold how we were prior to Neo Liberalism and we are needing change and he strongly supports Democracy. The reason he was voted as Leader was because Labour had changed from the Parlimentarians voting for Leader to the Membership. This was a deliberate move to a more democratic Party. By being a Party who listened to and was supported more by their membership, the Party would not find themselves so beholding to interest groups. It was Ed Milliband who made this change. The Membership voted for Corbyn a second time after the Party tried to get rid of them, even though they refused to let a lot of new members vote.
Absolutely. I think Corbyn is probably innocent of many of the charges of antisemitism but I don't care. I just want a potentially electable opposition to hold the Tories to account. The failed socialism of the '70s and '80s is never going to win an election. The Labour party needs to move forwards not backwards. Starmer may be just the kind of centrist they need. Have to say he's been disappointing so far in the Commons but I'm still allowing him a honeymoon period for now.
