Labour Leader: Keir Starmer III

[droodzilla]

The EHRC report was not commissioned to assess or comment on the Chakrabarti report.
It's conclusions, however, proved that her report was not as accurate as her Ladyship suggested.

Anyway, if you really want to do this here's the EHRC report:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...ion-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf

It makes multiple references to the Chakrabarti report and not one of them is unfavourable. In fact many of the problems it identifies with Labour's handling of anti-Semitism complaints are attributed to its failure to implement the Chakrabarti report.

You are talking crap and smearing one of the most principled politicians we have.

 

[Tony L]

Shami will always get people’s backs up as Conservative Party institutional racism actually has a very real and substantial body count (Windrush, Hostile Environment, Austerity, Grenfell etc etc). Having a feckless incompetent clown such as Corbyn to smear is a good deflection tactic.

PS Conservative Party racism even has its own lengthy Wikipedia page. Doesn’t go back anything like far enough IMHO, it should clearly also document the party’s bloody history in the slave trade, colonialism etc.

 

[ks.234]

Balls. Nobody credible has ever said it was a whitewash. Even the BoD came out cautiously in favour of it on its release. If by "everyone knows" you mean "there's been a campaign of smears and innuendos against a left wing woman of colour based on nothing and orchestrated by some of the worst, most cynical scumbags in politics" then sure. And if you want to identify with those people work away. I did think better of you.


It mentions it a lot: it leans on it in fact. Some of its most damaging claims concern its recommendations not being carried out.

Yes, just had a quick re read. My bad

 

[doctorf]

Anyway, if you really want to do this here's the EHRC report:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...ion-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf

It makes multiple references to the Chakrabarti report and not one of them is unfavourable. In fact many of the problems it identifies with Labour's handling of anti-Semitism complaints are attributed to its failure to implement the Chakrabarti report.

You are talking crap and smearing one of the most principled politicians we have.

I've read both and would suggest that opinion above is based purely on which side of politics you sit.
It's as clear to me one way as it is to you lot the other.
C'est la vie.

 

[ks.234]

Does anyone actually believe that Antisemitism went away with Corbyn? If there’s a whitewash, it’s in the minds of those who only see a problem within the narrow confines of a specific period of time and the narrow parameters of a political objective, people not interested in the problem itself, just how it can be used as leverage to make some sort of debating point.

The fact of the matter is that Antisemitism is as big a problem as it ever was. It has not gone away just because it’s no longer front page news. It hasn’t been dealt with, it just isn’t newsworthy anymore.

 

[Seanm]

I've read both and would suggest that opinion above is based purely on which side of politics you sit.
It's as clear to me one way as it is to you lot the other.
C'est la vie.

You'll know where they disagreed with Chakrabarti then, or by implication refuted her findings. Why don't you share?

My opinion is based on the content of the report. What's yours based on?

 

[doctorf]

Does anyone actually believe that Antisemitism went away with Corbyn? If there’s a whitewash, it’s in the minds of those who only see a problem within the narrow confines of a specific period of time and the narrow parameters of a political objective, people not interested in the problem itself, just how it can be used as leverage to make some sort of debating point.

The fact of the matter is that Antisemitism is as big a problem as it ever was. It has not gone away just because it’s no longer front page news. It hasn’t been dealt with, it just isn’t newsworthy anymore.

I agree, in the same way that the Marxists were there under Blair and the right wingers were there under Corbyn.
The emphasis on certain issues is always going to be defined by who is in charge, but unless they kick one wing out of the party, it will always be the case.

 

[doctorf]

You'll know where they disagreed with Chakrabarti then, or by implication refuted her findings. Why don't you share?

My opinion is based on the content of the report. What's yours based on?

Sean, I've read the reports, I've come to my own conclusions and I do not expect you to agree with me.

 

[droodzilla]

I've read both and would suggest that opinion above is based purely on which side of politics you sit.
It's as clear to me one way as it is to you lot the other.
C'est la vie.

This has nothing to do with politics.

You made a false statement that the EHRC report discredits the Chakrabarti report.

It doesn't. The EHRC report refers extensively to the Chakrabarti report and implicitly endorses many (if not all) of its recommendations.

You are smearing a principled woman because of your political bias.

Frankly, it stinks.

Instead of threadcrapping with these smears, why don't you engage with what Chakrabarti actually says in the article I linked to. Can you see any potential problems with making exceptions to the universality of human rights? Can you think of anything that might possibly go wrong when such exceptions are made?

 

[Seanm]

Sean, I've read the reports, I've come to my own conclusions and I do not expect you to agree with me.

I expect you to back up the claim that the EHRC refutes the Chakrabarti report. If it does then it should be really, really easy to do this. If it doesn't then you're on a forum casually smearing one of the few principled politicians in the country. It's really not a matter of opinion or political perspective.

 

[ks.234]

I agree, in the same way that the Marxists were there under Blair and the right wingers were there under Corbyn.
The emphasis on certain issues is always going to be defined by who is in charge, but unless they kick one wing out of the party, it will always be the case.

Antisemitism is an evil. Marxism and The Right Wing aren’t. Well, Marxism isn’t.

 

[Seanm]

Tuggenhat’s at it now:

https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1351882891236683778?s=21

The Chakrabarti thing is worth dwelling on, not to shame doctorf, who’s only doing what’s asked of him, but because it provides a really clear answer to the timeless questions, "Why is the Labour Party so craven and pathetic?" and "Why are there so few principled politicians?" The reward for any left wing Labour politician who acts with integrity and professionalism will be a lifetime of smears, orchestrated by the Labour Party with the connivance of every other branch of the establishment, from the Conservative Party to the press and the BBC. What a spectacle.

 

[droodzilla]

Tuggenhat’s at it now:

https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1351882891236683778?s=21

The Chakrabarti thing is worth dwelling on, not to shame doctorf, who’s only doing what’s asked of him, but because it provides a really clear answer to the timeless questions, "Why is the Labour Party so craven and pathetic?" and "Why are there so few principled politicians?" The reward for any left wing Labour politician who acts with integrity and professionalism will be a lifetime of smears, orchestrated by the Labour Party with the connivance of every other branch of the establishment, from the Conservative Party to the press and the BBC. What a spectacle.

Yes. That's why I reacted so vigorously to what the good doctor wrote.

I'm not angry with him personally, but I'm furious about the way in which political debate has been degraded in the last few years: anything goes, no matter how vile or untrue, if it can be used against one's political enemies.

Chakrabarti should sue Tugendhat. Somebody needs to.

 

[Nick_G]

Yes. That's why I reacted so vigorously to what the good doctor wrote.

I'm not angry with him personally, but I'm furious about the way in which political debate has been degraded in the last few years: anything goes, no matter how vile or untrue, if it can be used against one's political enemies.

Chakrabarti should sue Tugendhat. Somebody needs to.

You can blame the orange turd for that. Constant media coverage and normalisation of this behaviour is only going to be toxic in the long run.

 

[ks.234]

Yes. That's why I reacted so vigorously to what the good doctor wrote.

I'm not angry with him personally, but I'm furious about the way in which political debate has been degraded in the last few years: anything goes, no matter how vile or untrue, if it can be used against one's political enemies.

Chakrabarti should sue Tugendhat. Somebody needs to.

It’s the hypocrisy, the complete perversion of the truth that makes me angry. That a party so immersed in the vilest of racism can throw that accusation at anyone and not get pulled up for it, is a sad, sad sign of a world gone Trump

 

[doctorf]

Yes. That's why I reacted so vigorously to what the good doctor wrote.

I'm not angry with him personally, but I'm furious about the way in which political debate has been degraded in the last few years: anything goes, no matter how vile or untrue, if it can be used against one's political enemies.

Chakrabarti should sue Tugendhat. Somebody needs to.

Chakrabarti joined the LP one day, wrote a report the next day and was in the House of Lords quicker than Cummins drove to Barnard Castle.
I refuse to go through each report line by line, but people can make their own minds up by reading the reports and by reading the relevant timelines.
She stinks, the Labour Party stinks and Corbyn and his cronies/comrades should have been expelled years ago.

 

[doctorf]

Tuggenhat’s at it now:

https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1351882891236683778?s=21

The Chakrabarti thing is worth dwelling on, not to shame doctorf, who’s only doing what’s asked of him, but because it provides a really clear answer to the timeless questions, "Why is the Labour Party so craven and pathetic?" and "Why are there so few principled politicians?" The reward for any left wing Labour politician who acts with integrity and professionalism will be a lifetime of smears, orchestrated by the Labour Party with the connivance of every other branch of the establishment, from the Conservative Party to the press and the BBC. What a spectacle.

She’s a lawyer, so if anyone can sue him, she can.
I won’t hold my breath.

 

[doctorf]

The Chakrabarti thing is worth dwelling on, not to shame doctorf, who’s only doing what’s asked of him, but because it provides a really clear answer to the timeless questions, "Why is the Labour Party so craven and pathetic?" .........

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Tony L]

She stinks, the Labour Party stinks and Corbyn and his cronies/comrades should have been expelled years ago.

Why do you have blinkers towards the institutional racism of the Conservative Party? Why is actually killing people (Windrush, Grenfell, Hostile Environment etc) so much easier for you to overlook than the feckless indecisive non-leadership of Corbyn?

There is no one in the Tory Party with anything even remotely approaching the decency, integrity and compassion of Shami Chakrabarti. Not even close. Even the ones that aren’t racist anti-science alt-right Trump clones are corrupt self-interested trough-feeders.

 

[ff1d1l]

Chakrabarti joined the LP one day, wrote a report the next day and was in the House of Lords quicker than Cummins drove to Barnard Castle.
I refuse to go through each report line by line, but people can make their own minds up by reading the reports and by reading the relevant timelines.
She stinks, the Labour Party stinks and Corbyn and his cronies/comrades should have been expelled years ago.

New Zealand deaths...25.
Johnson government deaths...heading for 100k plus.
Labour party deaths 0.
Deaths attributable to Corbyn 0.
Someones practising misdirection on you.