Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

CelticRambler wrote: »

Was just about to make the same point: Anti-semitic attacks up 74% in France in 2018. The Force is strong in that Corbyn lad, if some folk are to be believed. :rolleyes:

And I have posted that it is a confluence of events that has led to the increase of abuse against anyone not white and Christian basically. But to ignore Labour and Corbyn has a problem just means it festers and will not go away, which it has done with the Labour Party.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

May I ask how exactly Corbyn is expected to defend someone from death threats issued by members of the public? Is that not a police matter?

Is there any evidence that these threats were issued by members of the LP?


I would also remind you that the PM dismissed death threats against female MPs which parroted the language he himself used ('Surrender Act' for example) as 'humbug'. Why is Johnson not being pilloried for failing to protect female MPs -many of whom are not standing in this GE due to the threats they have received?

Maybe he should have ensured his friend was kicked out of the party instead of trying to have him reinstated.

Maybe he should have shown more understanding when one of his MPs needs a police escort but he downplays it by saying nobody is under threat. Does he or his supporters think she made it up and requested a police escort to undermine him? Are they accusing her of wasting police resources because she doesn't like Corbyn?

quokula

Bannasidhe wrote: »

May I ask how exactly Corbyn is expected to defend someone from death threats issued by members of the public? Is that not a police matter?

Is there any evidence that these threats were issued by members of the LP?

None whatsoever. The cases that were investigated and found perpetrators were always people with no connection to Labour, and were serial racist right wing extremist types.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/luciana-berger-murder-boast-terror-offences-trial-1.467449
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-38242100
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/man-who-sent-death-threats-11670486

Joe_ Public

lawred2 wrote: »

surely a complaint has to be investigated first?

Sure. And obviously it was investigated and the candidate was cleared to stand. And now he's stepped down and embarrassed the party further. I mean, we can all see the issue there, cant we?

jm08

Enzokk wrote: »

You could be right that his only crime is that he is a supporter of Corbyn, it could also be the following,



Labour must reverse the disastrous decision to readmit Chris Williamson

So either he is so unlucky that he just happens to support people who just happens to hold antisemitic views, and as evidenced on the day of the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting it just happened by bad luck that he tweeted a link to a story about an allegation against The Board of Deputies of British Jews. Or it seems clear that there is more to his suspension than just the fact that he is a ardent supporter of Corbyn.





See above for the allegations against Williamson, it is not just one thing he said about Labour being too apologetic about antisemitism, it is him saying that and then supporting others that has anti-Semitic views as well.

As for Corbyn, well the problem I see is that while I also don't think he is antisemitic, but the incidences of him supporting or liking posts or people that are antisemitic makes you wonder. Add in the apparent interference from his office when it comes to antisemitism allegations against members, you have to at least consider why this seems to keep happening with Labour and Corbyn.

UK's Labour Party spars with BBC over charges of anti-Semitism

Here is Norman Finkelstein's take on British anti-semitism which will answer a lot of your arguments. He says that research shows that anti-semitism is not a huge issue in British Society (7%/8% hold some anti-semitic views), but its going to be a problem if Labour lose the election because of charges of anti-semitism).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEX5OGmXLz4

Noam Chomsky is another one worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edicDsSwYpk

lawred2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sure. And obviously it was investigated and the candidate was cleared to stand. And now he's stepped down and embarrassed the party further. I mean, we can all see the issue there, cant we?

Are you referring to Kate Ramsden?

I've read what she wrote. Clumsy but hardly evidence of anti semitism. Does Israel get a carte blanche to carry out abuses of human rights?

To me; that's the message I get when I see the Labour Party giving the complainants what they want.

Joe_ Public

Just for a bit of balance, i find it staggeringly hypocritical of Ian Austin to defend johnsons use of the term "letterboxes". Such casual, ignorant racism is often much worse than the direct kind. You would think austin would be aware of that. Not a very credible person imo.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1192559852754743297?s=20

Joe_ Public

lawred2 wrote: »

Are you referring to Kate Ramsden?

I've read what she wrote. Clumsy but hardly evidence of anti semitism. Does Israel get a carte blanche to carry out abuses of human rights?

To me; that's the message I get when I see the Labour Party giving the complainants what they want.

No. Gideon Bull in clacton.

First Up

Hearing supporters of the most racist state on earth complain about anti-semitism takes irony to a new level but it has feck all to do with Brexit.

Labour and the Tories are both battling their own demons (with the demons coming out on top) but the EU didn't cause any of them and Brexit sure won't cure them.

lawred2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No. Gideon Bull in clacton.

Ah ok

Problem with these things is that it's impossible to know someone's mind. That Shylock thing could have been a genuine unknowing mistake or it could be evidence of true anti semitism.

Was it a once off for that lad?

Has he a history of other similar 'gaffes'?

If not then maybe it was a mistake. And do we not have any room for daft mistakes any more?

But then maybe he is a racist. What I've read about him doesn't really tell me either way.

Leroy42

If he didn't know anything about the character why would he bring the character up in a conversation.

I would understand if he said something pretty publicly known, Hamlet, White Van Man, Hulk or whatever, and to do so without understand the implications (if any) of the character. But Shylock?

Hardly a name people use in everyday conversation is it?

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

If he didn't know anything about the character why would he bring the character up in a conversation.

I would understand if he said something pretty publicly known, Hamlet, White Van Man, Hulk or whatever, and to do so without understand the implications (if any) of the character. But Shylock?

Hardly a name people use in everyday conversation is it?

sure - but that still doesn't really prove evidence of anything does it? Who is to say that it's not a common everyday phrase where he's from? Everywhere is different.

Do you know the origin of every single word or phrase you've ever uttered?

Look - he could very well be a raging antisemite. I'd want more than that as evidence though.

quokula

First Up wrote: »

Hearing supporters of the most racist state on earth complain about anti-semitism takes irony to a new level but it has feck all to do with Brexit.

Labour and the Tories are both battling their own demons (with the demons coming out on top) but the EU didn't cause any of them and Brexit sure won't cure them.

This is partly true, but if the accusations stick then that gets the Tories what they want and gets a hard Brexit. If they don't then there's a decent chance of a Labour government and an EFTA style deal or no Brexit. It's pretty important to us all.

It's no coincidence that the Tories started day 1 of the campaign with "this is the Brexit election", then after a couple of days of Tory MPs and candidates insulting Grenfell victims and defending rapists, suddenly Labour anti-semitism is top of the agenda again.


Edit - I was replying as I thought you were saying that this stuff is not relevant to Brexit, but re-reading what you said I don't think that was actually the point you were making. I agree that Brexit won't change these issues one way or another

First Up

quokula wrote:

It's no coincidence that the Tories started day 1 of the campaign with "this is the Brexit election", then after a couple of days of Tory MPs and candidates insulting Grenfell victims and defending rapists, suddenly Labour anti-semitism is top of the agenda again.

Its just an electoral ploy - like everything else in that hopelessly insular country.

Joe_ Public

lawred2 wrote: »

Ah ok

Problem with these things is that it's impossible to know someone's mind. That Shylock thing could have been a genuine unknowing mistake or it could be evidence of true anti semitism.

Was it a once off for that lad?

Has he a history of other similar 'gaffes'?

If not then maybe it was a mistake. And do we not have any room for daft mistakes any more?

But then maybe he is a racist. What I've read about him doesn't really tell me either way.

The issue for me here is that this prospective candidate, whethwr by mistake or not, had a complaint made against him at a time when the party is under fire for the way it has handled allegations of AS. How could they imagine it wouldnt have led to this? As soon as it emerged he simply had to stand down. How did they think it would be otherwise? Did they think it wouldnt be raised or theyd shrug it off and defend it in some way? Naive or reckless, i cant decide which. Or both.

quokula

Leroy42 wrote: »

If he didn't know anything about the character why would he bring the character up in a conversation.

I would understand if he said something pretty publicly known, Hamlet, White Van Man, Hulk or whatever, and to do so without understand the implications (if any) of the character. But Shylock?

Hardly a name people use in everyday conversation is it?

Because it's a slang word in some places, meaning tight-fisted.

I heard it plenty of times growing up, before I read Merchant of Venice and found out the origins. It's certainly antisemitic if you know those origins, but doubt that many people do.

With that said I haven't heard it used in years which is probably due to more awareness in society of these kinds of issues so surprising to hear someone using it in this day and age. I'd still be inclined to believe his account that he didn't know the origin of the word as even if he was some kind of massive closet racist I doubt that would manifest itself in the use of that word at a council meeting.

robinph

Enzokk wrote: »

As ambro25 posted the civil service is in purdah now so getting anything new news...

Which creates some really daft situations when dealing with other government bodies that have nothing to do with anything political, but means that an upcoming 6 monthly meeting I'll be having with one department shortly will be them telling us that various things they were telling us about for the last couple of meetings they now can't tell us any updates about... but hopefully we liked the biscuits.

Leroy42

I thought yesterdays finance launches were very telling. Labour came under massive attack in 2017 for their plans to increase investment, and even now they are being portrayed as somehow giving money away.

Yet the Tories yesterday announced a massive increase in public spending, totally the opposite of what they have been preaching for the last number of years. As Beth Rigby pointed out, it shows that Labour has won the economic argument. The Tories have finally, after so many wasted years, agreed that they need to spend to stimulate.

That in itself is a pretty big admission that far from the party of economics, the Tories are simply slow learners

PeadarCo

First Up wrote:

Hearing supporters of the most racist state on earth complain about anti-semitism takes irony to a new level but it has feck all to do with Brexit.

If you think Israel is the most racist state on earth you obviously haven't heard of what China is doing to some of its Muslim population. Its far far worse than even the worst things either side of the Israeli Palestinian conflict have been accused of.

What is interesting so far is how the big stories haven't been to do with Brexit so far. The trade offs and options that will be presented to the UK aren't being talked about.

Joe_ Public

PeadarCo wrote: »

What is interesting so far is how the big stories haven't been to do with Brexit so far. The trade offs and options that will be presented to the UK aren't being talked about.

Interesting for sure, though not all that surprising i would say. 2017 was billed as a brexit election and ultimately largely pivoted around the issue of social care. We're told things are different this time, that brexit really is the big thing, but I've seen polls where voters in those critical northern leave areas say brexit is down the list of their main concerns. Remains to be seen how it plays out. Nhs is obviously critical.

boring accountant

PeadarCo wrote: »

What is interesting so far is how the big stories haven't been to do with Brexit so far. The trade offs and options that will be presented to the UK aren't being talked about.

That's to be expected in an election. The Tories want to campaign on Brexit. The opposition and the media don't want it to be about Brexit.

CelticRambler

PeadarCo wrote: »

What is interesting so far is how the big stories haven't been to do with Brexit so far. The trade offs and options that will be presented to the UK aren't being talked about.

It's exactly as we predicted here on this thread: a GE was never going to fought or won as proxy referendum, and Johnson-Cummings trying to make it so is yet another example of their ineptitude.

Unfortunately, as someone ("ordinary") interviewed on Sky yesterday said, however the next government is made up, they'll consider their "majority" based on about 35% of the vote as a mandate for the kind of Brexit they want.

Democracy in action, innit? Will of the People, and all that ... :rolleyes:

trellheim

Something to remember - 99% of every news items about politics for the next month will be someone's grid item - it will be planned and part of a strategy, either defence or attack , cyber or print, radio what have you.

Brexitcast has finally started a small piece at the end of their show analyzing social media impact and its the best bit of the show

Leroy42

boring accountant wrote: »

That's to be expected in an election. The Tories want to campaign on Brexit. The opposition and the media don't want it to be about Brexit.

Has anybody told the Express, Telegraph and the BBC that they are no longer part of the media? And Sky News. They had it billed as the Brexit Election.

boring accountant

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has anybody told the Express, Telegraph and the BBC that they are no longer part of the media? And Sky News. They had it billed as the Brexit Election.

I was thinking about Remain supporting media when I said that.
I would include those media outlets (with the exception of the BBC) as part of the Tory camp
To be honest I sometimes forget though news outlets even exist. They're just not on my radar.

Seth Brundle

Victoria Atkins proves she is not on a par with the "brightest and best" that she is wants to come to the UK...
https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1192748185783062528

Joe_ Public

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Victoria Atkins proves she is not on a par with the "brightest and best" that she is wants to come to the UK...
https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1192748185783062528

They want to bring down immigration. Why is it a struggle to admit it?

"With freedom of movement its very difficult for us to control the numbers."

Ah, back on steady ground. Its the pesky EUs fault! But....but...but what about non EU immigration? Thats a far bigger issue. Whats your excuse for that?

c.p.w.g.w

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They want to bring down immigration. Why is it a struggle to admit it?

"With freedom of movement its very difficult for us to control the numbers."

Ah, back on steady ground. Its the pesky EUs fault! But....but...but what about non EU immigration? Thats a far bigger issue. Whats your excuse for that?

Hasn't EU immigration to the UK not dropped over the past 3 years

Nody

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They want to bring down immigration. Why is it a struggle to admit it?

"With freedom of movement its very difficult for us to control the numbers."

Ah, back on steady ground. Its the pesky EUs fault! But....but...but what about non EU immigration? Thats a far bigger issue. Whats your excuse for that?

Well that's actually EUs fault as well; as part of the policies UK was prohibited from controlling the immigration. What policy? Well you know, that policy that was made back in the two thousands by the commission. What you mean more details? Are you for free immigration or something!? It's not my job to know these details! Good bye!

There you go; saved you the hassle of trying to get an answer from them and you can copy and paste it for most questions where they need to lie about it so a two in one.

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They want to bring down immigration. Why is it a struggle to admit it?

"With freedom of movement its very difficult for us to control the numbers."

Ah, back on steady ground. Its the pesky EUs fault! But....but...but what about non EU immigration? Thats a far bigger issue. Whats your excuse for that?

I think the issue is that they want to give voters the impression they'll bring down immigration, but they know that they need to keep immigration up in order to keep public services and the economy ticking over.

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They want to bring down immigration. Why is it a struggle to admit it?

"With freedom of movement its very difficult for us to control the numbers."

Ah, back on steady ground. Its the pesky EUs fault! But....but...but what about non EU immigration? Thats a far bigger issue. Whats your excuse for that?

They don't really. The Tories since Cameron came in have always talked tough on immigration before an election but showed little interest in reducing numbers once in power. The only true immigration skeptics the tories have had on the front bench are May and Patel.

Boris for example couldn't give a **** about the numbers but knows saying "points based system" sounds tough.