advertisement


Labour at it again... anti-Semitism... #II

John Ware?

Sorry - got his name wrong. Although you knew who I meant tbf that wasn't deflection.

Criticising the journalist/programme, and especially before prog' aired, continues to be a deflection.

Nor agreeing with biased inaccurate reporting is only deflection if you take a very particular point of view.
Other posters seem to take the view that accepting biased inaccurate reporting is an example of naïveté.
Dammed if you do, damned if you don’t

Gentile Labour supporters/activists/office holders et al are the real victims of Labour's AS problems?

Actually tackling bigotry is far from being as easy.

I agree it isn't easy, but not 'far from'.
That's ime, but my employer's management structure had a clearly signposted and strictly enforced 'no tolerance' policy.
istm re: anti-Semitism this is what's lacking in Labour - hence many years of failure to resolve.

No, AS not denied.

It appears you can't see the wood for the trees. Or the shoals for the lil' fish.

The operative word of course being 'If' Despite all of the noise, I simply refuse to believe that Labour is a fundamentally AS party.

istm a risk/blind spot for us lefty progressive types is believing we, and the orgs we support, couldn't possibly be prejudiced or bigoted.
This is a bit odd given we are humans and such 'orrid things are part of our nature.
Another example of this is Labour's aggressively misogynistic women's officer.

Trampling over marginalised groups in a half arsed attempt to lift a marginalised group isn't liberation.

It's more oppression.

As has been posted already, it's not that easy to deal with bigotry but now is your chance to explain what you would have Labour do and why it is simple?

As you are are currently a Labour supporter iiuc it's forum etiquette for you to go first.
Happy to reciprocate afterwards, even though I have already posted this info', as imo we should assist the lil' fish most in need of support.

As I said earlier, Corbyn is seen as pro-Palestinian and there are parts of the establishment that want to bring him down for that.

Nothing Labour can do will stop this happening. Nothing at all. No number of exclusions or inquiries will stop this accusation. It has the double whammy of being an easy deflection from Labour’s manifesto and criticism of the Conservatives.

As Jack has pointed out, the more one looks at the Panorama programme and the people involved, the more it smells funny.

All institutions will contain racists. Few are institutionally racist. I can think of one that is though and it is one that the BBC gives an extraordinary amount of airtime to with little criticism.
gettyimages-540653994_1_.jpg


Stephen

whataboutism akimbo continues
 
Last edited:
Just replace him? Murder him with a ice pick to the head at least, surely?
Poetic but illegal.

Interesting that you let this stay yet my comment that Farage should draw a line just under the jaw from one ear to the next was pulled by you with a snippy “violence will not be tolerated” comment and then you ban me from further comment on the thread.

You do hypocrite much?
 
Interesting that you let this stay yet my comment that Farage should draw a line just under the jaw from one ear to the next was pulled by you with a snippy “violence will not be tolerated” comment and then you ban me from further comment on the thread.

You do hypocrite much?
Your comment was serious his was not. I have edited out your ad hom.
 
After a few jars, he and Jack will be tearfully hugging each other, saying "you're my best mate, ever".

Addiction is a disability. When did mocking a lil' fish for this become acceptable on pfm?

As the tide goes out we see which members are swimming around in the nuddie.
 
Last edited:
Sorry - got his name wrong. Although you knew who I meant tbf that wasn't deflection.

Criticising the journalist/programme, and especially before prog' aired, continues to be a deflection.



Gentile Labour supporters/activists/office holders et al are the real victims of Labour's AS problems?



I agree it isn't easy, but not 'far from'.
That's ime, but my employer's management structure had a clearly signposted and strictly enforced 'no tolerance' policy.
istm re: anti-Semitism this is what's lacking in Labour - hence many years of failure to resolve.



It appears you can't see the wood for the trees. Or the shoals for the lil' fish.



istm a risk/blind spot for us lefty progressive types is believing we, and the orgs we support, couldn't possibly be prejudiced or bigoted.
This is a bit odd given we are humans and such 'orrid things are part of our nature.
Another example of this is Labour's aggressively misogynistic women's officer.

Trampling over marginalised groups in a half arsed attempt to lift a marginalised group isn't liberation.

It's more oppression.



As you are are currently a Labour supporter iiuc it's forum etiquette for you to go first.
Happy to reciprocate afterwards, even though I have already posted this info', as imo we should assist the lil' fish most in need of support.



whataboutism akimbo continues
A whole lot of nothing there, just a few sentences breaking up the usual dull sarcasm.
 
While denialism is common in the party, it simply isn't true to say that Labour as a whole has spent the last 4 years denying and deflecting. What are your specific objections to the Chakrabarti Report? What is it, again specifically, about the reforms introduced since McNicol's team left that you think constitute denial and deflection?

It's clear that this issue requires clear thinking, careful interventions, attention to different voices, balanced evaluation of measures and developments. Everything else is counterproductive: it makes reform more difficult and plays into the hands of the far right. What do you think you're accomplishing with statements like the above?
I'm afraid the knee jerk reaction to the Chakrabarti report is akin to the assumption that all MSM is anti Labour & the whole 'establishment' is against them. The problem with a report saying that there is no AS within LP can be disproved at a later date.
 
OK, but the democratic process that enables members to elect leader and deputy leader has produced Tom Watson, a man who has attacked Corbyn at every opportunity in pursuit of his own political ambitions and has been instrumental in exploiting division to his own ends.

One valid way to present a united front to address issues would be to replace Watson with someone who has party unity as a priority.

But the Corbyn would be called a Stalinist. Again.
Watson does have a mandate just like Corbyn. You can't have it both ways, I think Corbyn is destroying the LP as an electoral force but nothing I can do about it.
 
Addiction is a disability. When did mocking a lil' fish for this become acceptable on pfm?
He's not mocking addiction. He is mocking the notion that after a few (metaphorical or otherwise) jars Jack and his fallen out mate will kiss and make up.
 
He's not mocking addiction. He is mocking the notion that after a few (metaphorical or otherwise) jars Jack and his fallen out mate will kiss and make up.

Perhaps, but we are both entitled to our opinions.
istm if Jack had a physical disability it wouldn't have been mentioned by Joe in a similar manner.

A whole lot of nothing there, just a few sentences breaking up the usual dull sarcasm.

You have no idea how to address Labour's anti-Semitism problems, or interest in potential solutions from others.
Thanks for the clarification.
 
I still don't understand why JC can't sort this. It's as easy as you like:
1. "It is LP policy that any discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion (etc) will not be tolerated."
2. "Racism is defined as X, sexism as Y, antisemitism as Z, etc"
3. Please note that criticising the behaviour of an indiividual who happens to be black, or gay, or Jewish, is not of itself racist, homophobic or antisemitic. The same goes for countries."
4. "Anyone who breaks the rules from here on in will get done."
Job done. How hard can it be?
 
I'm afraid the knee jerk reaction to the Chakrabarti report is akin to the assumption that all MSM is anti Labour & the whole 'establishment' is against them. The problem with a report saying that there is no AS within LP can be disproved at a later date.
What was wrong with the Chakrabarti Report? It certainly didn't conclude that there was no antisemitism in the Labour Party. And what knee-jerk reaction?
 
I still don't understand why JC can't sort this. It's as easy as you like:
1. "It is LP policy that any discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion (etc) will not be tolerated."
2. "Racism is defined as X, sexism as Y, antisemitism as Z, etc"
3. Please note that criticising the behaviour of an indiividual who happens to be black, or gay, or Jewish, is not of itself racist, homophobic or antisemitic. The same goes for countries."
4. "Anyone who breaks the rules from here on in will get done."
Job done. How hard can it be?
If it was that easy Steve, don’t you think he would have acted by now?
 
Come on then, why is it more complicated? It's exactly what i would do in a workplace. The LP is a workplace like any other.
 


advertisement


Back
Top