Corbyn’s anti semitism is just a dog whistle to harvest the Islamic vote en masse - let’s be honest about this please.
Because otherwise the Islamic vote would be 100% for May?
Well maybe if she wore a hijab.
But bar Corbyn’s jihad on the Jews and being in favour of unlimited immigration, there is no particular other reasons why the Islamic vote should be so heavily pro Labour.
Corbyn’s anti semitism is just a dog whistle to harvest the Islamic vote en masse - let’s be honest about this please.
Because otherwise the Islamic vote would be 100% for May?
Well maybe if she wore a hijab.
But bar Corbyn’s jihad on the Jews and being in favour of unlimited immigration, there is no particular other reasons why the Islamic vote should be so heavily pro Labour.
Well, that is an early entry for most idiotic comment of the day, and not one easily surpassed. Congratulations!
Oh, and Happy Birthday PB for yesterday. Well done to Mike, Robert, TSE and all those who contribute above and below the line. As others have said one of the best sites on the net.
Labour figures have criticised Jeremy Corbyn's decision to sack his shadow Northern Ireland secretary for calling for another EU referendum.
Labour peer Peter Hain described the dismissal as a "Stalinist purge".
If Owen Smith was digging nickel in the Siberian mines then that might have had some validity. Actually he has just returned to the backbenches.
How would the Conservative party have reacted if a Cabinet member had advocated a second referendum? Would that be fine and dandy or a sacking as part of a "Stalinist Purge"?
The problem is that it looks like Corbyn has finally come of the fence and unfortunately for most of his supporters on the wrong side. A serious error in my opinion. Smith's fate is neither here nor there.
Listened to qualifying on the radio. Surprised how close it was in the first half of Q3. Rather relieved my decision not to back Verstappen for pole at 8 didn't end up looking silly. On the other hand, my decision not to tip Raikkonen to be top 3 in third practice did look silly.
Quite content with the Red Bull Constructors' tip as well. Right now, and it's very early days, they're looking in great shape. Qualifying should be their weakness, and Renault are emphasising reliability over performance, and Red Bull historically develops well over a season, and they have the best driver pairing. Far from certain, of course, but 6.2 feels too long to me.
Amazing that Corbynistas have such a problem with far right, extremist foreign powers, given how willing they are to push Kremlin talking points after the first ever chemical attack on British soil.
Trusting Theresa May and the UK’s utterly discredited security establishment about as far as you can throw them is just common sense and does not equal pushing ‘Kremlin talking points’.
But, you support the Kremlin.
He IS the Kremlin! ;-)
His English seems quite good for someone based in St Petersburg.
Corbyn’s anti semitism is just a dog whistle to harvest the Islamic vote en masse - let’s be honest about this please.
Because otherwise the Islamic vote would be 100% for May?
Well maybe if she wore a hijab.
But bar Corbyn’s jihad on the Jews and being in favour of unlimited immigration, there is no particular other reasons why the Islamic vote should be so heavily pro Labour.
Well, that is an early entry for most idiotic comment of the day, and not one easily surpassed. Congratulations!
Well what do you suppose the reasons are for the strong spilt to Labour ? Support for LBGT rights ?
Amazing that Corbynistas have such a problem with far right, extremist foreign powers, given how willing they are to push Kremlin talking points after the first ever chemical attack on British soil.
Trusting Theresa May and the UK’s utterly discredited security establishment about as far as you can throw them is just common sense and does not equal pushing ‘Kremlin talking points’.
But, you support the Kremlin.
He IS the Kremlin! ;-)
His English seems quite good for someone based in St Petersburg.
England have done much better at the cricket over the last 2 days. Clearly not playing is the best tactic.
And happy belated returns to PB. I can't really recall when I first joined, it feels like it has been a part of my life forever. Must have been about 10 years ago. Huge amounts of chat, many, many good laughs, a bit of money on the side just to make it interesting (as Two tonne Ted would say) and a fantastic source of information and expertise on the stories of the day. I love it.
Amazing that Corbynistas have such a problem with far right, extremist foreign powers, given how willing they are to push Kremlin talking points after the first ever chemical attack on British soil.
Trusting Theresa May and the UK’s utterly discredited security establishment about as far as you can throw them is just common sense and does not equal pushing ‘Kremlin talking points’.
But, you support the Kremlin.
He IS the Kremlin! ;-)
His English seems quite good for someone based in St Petersburg.
In the early nineteenth century most Russian aristocrats spoke French among themselves, rather than Russian. So it's not quite as far out as it sounds.
But surely Corbyn would rather be based in Leningrad than St Petersburg?
Mr. L, I can remember fairly closely when I joined. It was 2007, before the Conservative Party conference. I was very worried Brown would call a snap election and impose vile ID cards upon the nation (not to mention the execrable database) and then I'd have to either become a criminal or have every bureaucrat have the right to demand "Wo sind ihren Papieren, bitte?"
'twas two years after that I started offering regular F1 tips. Still amuses me that my first (half-)season was probably the best (maybe 2012 was better). And annoys me I didn't back my 70/1 Button for the 2009 title winning tip...
Corbyn’s anti semitism is just a dog whistle to harvest the Islamic vote en masse - let’s be honest about this please.
No, it’s not. It’s much more connected to Soviet anti-Semitism.
So gaining the Muslim vote is just an added bonus ?
I think labelling all moslems anti-semitic is not only racist, but also profoundly wrong. For what it’s worth the moslem population of Islington North is relatively low. Corbyn never needed a moslem vote to be elected.
I do think a majority of Muslims are anti Israel that can lead to other things,just look at my constitucy of Bradford west.
First we had George ( Israel free zone) Galloway and then our own anti Semitic or Israel labour MP Shah.
Much of the anti-Jewish feeling within many Muslims (not all) derives from the Koran.
Palestinians might have grounds for disliking Israelis but it does not explain why so many Muslims should so often be anti-Jewish. The roots lie in their religion and culture. And that raises tough questions which those who seek to explain it away by referring to Israel’s policies or existence don’t wish to consider let alone answer.
Historically, Christianity has always been more hostile to Jews than Islam. It is only the Zionist project that has changed the balance to a degree. Antisemitism is a core component of Christian belief stemming particularly from the Easter narrative; Good Friday was a notorious day for initiating pogroms. The relative tolerance in England today contrasts with the intense Christianity of the medieval period; for example, the blood libel originated in East Anglia.
Labour figures have criticised Jeremy Corbyn's decision to sack his shadow Northern Ireland secretary for calling for another EU referendum.
Labour peer Peter Hain described the dismissal as a "Stalinist purge".
If Owen Smith was digging nickel in the Siberian mines then that might have had some validity. Actually he has just returned to the backbenches.
How would the Conservative party have reacted if a Cabinet member had advocated a second referendum? Would that be fine and dandy or a sacking as part of a "Stalinist Purge"?
The problem is that it looks like Corbyn has finally come of the fence and unfortunately for most of his supporters on the wrong side. A serious error in my opinion. Smith's fate is neither here nor there.
Why is it a serious error? He can hardly tolerate a member of the shadow cabinet openly opposing core party policy; to do so would have shown weakness.
It is the usual suspects such as Umunna who are making a fuss. Should the likes of Umunna still be Labour MPs, when their views diverge so far from most Labour party members?
F1: Ladbrokes not remotely awake yet, so betting etc will be a while. Mind you, I'm half-asleep, so it's no bad thing. I may or may not offer another tip, there've been a few already this weekend, but it's possible something will leap out.
As an aside, Ericsson was third in third practice, which was rather wet. I can't recall the precise odds but I think it was in the hundreds, so even at a fifth the odds, backing that would've been tasty. Next time there's a rainy practice it *might* be worth spraying 50p bets on the backmarkers to 'win' it.
Historically, Christianity has always been more hostile to Jews than Islam. It is only the Zionist project that has changed the balance to a degree. Antisemitism is a core component of Christian belief stemming particularly from the Easter narrative; Good Friday was a notorious day for initiating pogroms. The relative tolerance in England today contrasts with the intense Christianity of the medieval period; for example, the blood libel originated in East Anglia.
This is simply not true. There have been periods when there was extended anti-Semitism, including the Middle Ages, but these tended to be fairly rare peaks. The defeat of the Crusader Kingdoms was one such peak, as was the Black Death of the 1340s. Otherwise toleration was permitted on strict terms, including taxes and separate living areas ('ghetto' comes from the Italian word for 'closed area'). This was largely because Jews, as the only literate non-Church grouping in Europe, were extremely useful in both establishing trading links over long distances and also for intelligence gathering.
As for Islam, it could be just as violent against both Jews and Christians when it chose. It allowed certain branches of both to live in peace in the Middle Ages if they paid an extra tax, but they were not allowed to settle where they liked and they were not allowed to marry Muslim women (marriage of non-Muslim women to Muslim men, by contrast, was encouraged).
It is unfortunately easy to find people who spread false information about Christian/Jewish or Christian/Muslim relations - Daniel Goldhagen springs to mind, as does Susan Zuccotti, as does Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, who refuse to consider any actions of the Catholic Church under Nazi rule as in any way beneficial to the Jews. I don't think this he first two do it entirely deliberately - they're just not very intelligent - while the last is definitely driven by anti-Christian feeling. But that doesn't mean you should swallow their propaganda.
The crowning irony is that modern anti-Semitism is a racial theory that has nothing to do with religion and had its origins in Social Darwinism. It is no coincidence that the most anti-Semitic country in Europe was France, which was also the most anti-Clerical.
Labour figures have criticised Jeremy Corbyn's decision to sack his shadow Northern Ireland secretary for calling for another EU referendum.
Labour peer Peter Hain described the dismissal as a "Stalinist purge".
If Owen Smith was digging nickel in the Siberian mines then that might have had some validity. Actually he has just returned to the backbenches.
How would the Conservative party have reacted if a Cabinet member had advocated a second referendum? Would that be fine and dandy or a sacking as part of a "Stalinist Purge"?
The problem is that it looks like Corbyn has finally come of the fence and unfortunately for most of his supporters on the wrong side. A serious error in my opinion. Smith's fate is neither here nor there.
Why is it a serious error? He can hardly tolerate a member of the shadow cabinet openly opposing core party policy; to do so would have shown weakness.
It is the usual suspects such as Umunna who are making a fuss. Should the likes of Umunna still be Labour MPs, when their views diverge so far from most Labour party members?
IANAE on this but I have read on several occasions that Islam required its adherents to respect people of the book, that is both Christians and Jews and that there were many times during the zenith of Islamic society that they did exactly that. The Copts in Egypt were an example until relatively recently.
It seems to me that the current hatred of Jews amongst Islamists has been driven by the success and then the policies of Israel. Many of those policies are exceptionally brutal but then we don't live under the threat that they do. It is hardly surprising that the hatred caused by this brutality has caused hatred of all Jews. Doesn't make it right of course, particularly since many Jews in my experience have serious reservations about Israel's policies, especially in recent years.
Corbyn is not a clever man but he does instinctively support the underdog and the oppressed. It is not surprising that he has supported those who oppose Israel and it is not surprising that this has meant that he has associated with those who make anti-Semitic comments. I think this is a bit more complicated than charges of anti-Semitism might suggest.
Labour figures have criticised Jeremy Corbyn's decision to sack his shadow Northern Ireland secretary for calling for another EU referendum.
Labour peer Peter Hain described the dismissal as a "Stalinist purge".
If Owen Smith was digging nickel in the Siberian mines then that might have had some validity. Actually he has just returned to the backbenches.
How would the Conservative party have reacted if a Cabinet member had advocated a second referendum? Would that be fine and dandy or a sacking as part of a "Stalinist Purge"?
The problem is that it looks like Corbyn has finally come of the fence and unfortunately for most of his supporters on the wrong side. A serious error in my opinion. Smith's fate is neither here nor there.
Why is it a serious error? He can hardly tolerate a member of the shadow cabinet openly opposing core party policy; to do so would have shown weakness.
It is the usual suspects such as Umunna who are making a fuss. Should the likes of Umunna still be Labour MPs, when their views diverge so far from most Labour party members?
But they don't. 78% of Labour members are Remainers. This just reminds them of Corbyn's equivocation and Streeting has found a soundbite which is giving it legs. It also ill behoves someone with Corbyn's history to sack someone for having strongly held and independent views.
Corbyn’s anti semitism is just a dog whistle to harvest the Islamic vote en masse - let’s be honest about this please.
No, it’s not. It’s much more connected to Soviet anti-Semitism.
So gaining the Muslim vote is just an added bonus ?
I think labelling all moslems anti-semitic is not only racist, but also profoundly wrong. For what it’s worth the moslem population of Islington North is relatively low. Corbyn never needed a moslem vote to be elected.
I do think a majority of Muslims are anti Israel that can lead to other things,just look at my constitucy of Bradford west.
First we had George ( Israel free zone) Galloway and then our own anti Semitic or Israel labour MP Shah.
Much of the anti-Jewish feeling within many Muslims (not all) derives from the Koran.
Palestinians might have grounds for disliking Israelis but it does not explain why so many Muslims should so often be anti-Jewish. The roots lie in their religion and culture. And that raises tough questions which those who seek to explain it away by referring to Israel’s policies or existence don’t wish to consider let alone answer.
Historically, Christianity has always been more hostile to Jews than Islam. It is only the Zionist project that has changed the balance to a degree. Antisemitism is a core component of Christian belief stemming particularly from the Easter narrative; Good Friday was a notorious day for initiating pogroms. The relative tolerance in England today contrasts with the intense Christianity of the medieval period; for example, the blood libel originated in East Anglia.
Agreed. But it is not either or. Historic Christian anti-semitism does not explain pervasive anti-Jewish feeling in the Muslim world. The Islamic religion speaks in pretty unpleasant and hostile terms about Jews and that forms part of the background and culture to the Islamic world’s views about Jews.
Also - far too late the Pope admitted and apologised for the church’s historic error in its attitude to Jews and the liturgy was purged. There has - as far as I know - been no similar apologia by Islamic religious leaders for what is written in the Koran or for what is preached in some mosques.
Historically, Christianity has always been more hostile to Jews than Islam. It is only the Zionist project that has changed the balance to a degree. Antisemitism is a core component of Christian belief stemming particularly from the Easter narrative; Good Friday was a notorious day for initiating pogroms. The relative tolerance in England today contrasts with the intense Christianity of the medieval period; for example, the blood libel originated in East Anglia.
This is simply not true. There have been periods when there was extended anti-Semitism, including the Middle Ages, but these tended to be fairly rare peaks. The defeat of the Crusader Kingdoms was one such peak, as was the Black Death of the 1340s. Otherwise toleration was permitted on strict terms, including taxes and separate living areas ('ghetto' comes from the Italian word for 'closed area'). This was largely because Jews, as the only literate non-Church grouping in Europe, were extremely useful in both establishing trading links over long distances and also for intelligence gathering.
As for Islam, it could be just as violent against both Jews and Christians when it chose. It allowed certain branches of both to live in peace in the Middle Ages if they paid an extra tax, but they were not allowed to settle where they liked and they were not allowed to marry Muslim women (marriage of non-Muslim women to Muslim men, by contrast, was encouraged).
It is unfortunately easy to find people who spread false information about Christian/Jewish or Christian/Muslim relations - Daniel Goldhagen springs to mind, as does Susan Zuccotti, as does Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, who refuse to consider any actions of the Catholic Church under Nazi rule as in any way beneficial to the Jews. I don't think this he first two do it entirely deliberately - they're just not very intelligent - while the last is definitely driven by anti-Christian feeling. But that doesn't mean you should swallow their propaganda.
The crowning irony is that modern anti-Semitism is a racial theory that has nothing to do with religion and had its origins in Social Darwinism. It is no coincidence that the most anti-Semitic country in Europe was France, which was also the most anti-Clerical.
It is not true to state that "There have been periods when there was extended anti-Semitism, including the Middle Ages, but these tended to be fairly rare peaks." The Spanish expulsion of 1492, the Chmielnicki Uprising in 1648, the Russian pogroms beginning in 1881 and the Holocaust all occurred in different historical periods. It is offensive to cast a slur against Yad Vashem, which is an unbiased organisation dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust.
Id love it if the likes of Gapes, Streeting and Chris Leslie resigned the whip as long as they were prepared to take their ‘principles’ to a byelection and see whether they can beat Danzcuk.
IANAE on this but I have read on several occasions that Islam required its adherents to respect people of the book, that is both Christians and Jews and that there were many times during the zenith of Islamic society that they did exactly that. The Copts in Egypt were an example until relatively recently.
It seems to me that the current hatred of Jews amongst Islamists has been driven by the success and then the policies of Israel. Many of those policies are exceptionally brutal but then we don't live under the threat that they do. It is hardly surprising that the hatred caused by this brutality has caused hatred of all Jews. Doesn't make it right of course, particularly since many Jews in my experience have serious reservations about Israel's policies, especially in recent years.
Corbyn is not a clever man but he does instinctively support the underdog and the oppressed. It is not surprising that he has supported those who oppose Israel and it is not surprising that this has meant that he has associated with those who make anti-Semitic comments. I think this is a bit more complicated than charges of anti-Semitism might suggest.
Does being a supporter of the oppressed justify associating with Holocaust deniers - people who do not just spew hatred but deny facts? Holocaust deniers tend, on the whole, to be quite keen on oppression of Jews. Does Corbyn’s support of the oppressed not extend to oppressed Jews?
The difficulty with Corbyn’s views is that he claims to have principles but when his record is examined his support of those principles is in reality pretty wafer-thin. It would be truer to say that he likes some goups and does not care about others. Jews fall in the group he does not care about and therefore he is utterly indifferent to attacks on them, regardless of the source, type and offensiveness. Until it is pointed out and then he realises that it does not look good and he makes all sorts of inconsistent statements (some would call them lies) about not having seen or read the offensive material in question etc etc.
But it all feels as if he realises has been caught out and is trying to deal with the perception created rather than that he has a genuine understanding of why, for instance, no respectable, intelligent or decent politician ahould ever associate with Holocaust deniers.
Labour figures have criticised Jeremy Corbyn's decision to sack his shadow Northern Ireland secretary for calling for another EU referendum.
Labour peer Peter Hain described the dismissal as a "Stalinist purge".
If Owen Smith was digging nickel in the Siberian mines then that might have had some validity. Actually he has just returned to the backbenches.
How would the Conservative party have reacted if a Cabinet member had advocated a second referendum? Would that be fine and dandy or a sacking as part of a "Stalinist Purge"?
The problem is that it looks like Corbyn has finally come of the fence and unfortunately for most of his supporters on the wrong side. A serious error in my opinion. Smith's fate is neither here nor there.
Why is it a serious error? He can hardly tolerate a member of the shadow cabinet openly opposing core party policy; to do so would have shown weakness.
It is the usual suspects such as Umunna who are making a fuss. Should the likes of Umunna still be Labour MPs, when their views diverge so far from most Labour party members?
It is not true to state that "There have been periods when there was extended anti-Semitism, including the Middle Ages, but these tended to be fairly rare peaks." The Spanish expulsion of 1492, the Chmielnicki Uprising in 1648, the Russian pogroms beginning in 1881 and the Holocaust all occurred in different historical periods. It is offensive to cast a slur against Yad Vashem, which is an unbiased organisation dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust.
I have worked with Yad Vashem in this country and in Israel for many years. I respect them for their many sterling qualities. I also reserve the right to criticise them when they twist facts to support themselves - as they do on Christian-Jewish relations. Do not think that is a prejudice that only goes one way. I will always challenge anyone when they are wrong - I was also the one who warned them, for example, to drop their eulogising of Greville Janner.
You, on the other hand, are restoring to personal abuse and obfuscation to try and hide your mistake. I am afraid that is entirely typical of modern Labour. You have lied twice on this thread in support of a man who has been repeatedly revealed as a racist, hypocrite and liar already. Unfortunately that reveals you as prejudiced yourself. That's your prerogative but don't expect me to respect you for it.
I have to go out now. I do hope that gives you food for thought.
Much of the anti-Jewish feeling within many Muslims (not all) derives from the Koran.
Palestinians might have grounds for disliking Israelis but it does not explain why so many Muslims should so often be anti-Jewish. The roots lie in their religion and culture. And that raises tough questions which those who seek to explain it away by referring to Israel’s policies or existence don’t wish to consider let alone answer.
Historically, Christianity has always been more hostile to Jews than Islam. It is only the Zionist project that has changed the balance to a degree. Antisemitism is a core component of Christian belief stemming particularly from the Easter narrative; Good Friday was a notorious day for initiating pogroms. The relative tolerance in England today contrasts with the intense Christianity of the medieval period; for example, the blood libel originated in East Anglia.
Agreed. But it is not either or. Historic Christian anti-semitism does not explain pervasive anti-Jewish feeling in the Muslim world. The Islamic religion speaks in pretty unpleasant and hostile terms about Jews and that forms part of the background and culture to the Islamic world’s views about Jews.
Also - far too late the Pope admitted and apologised for the church’s historic error in its attitude to Jews and the liturgy was purged. There has - as far as I know - been no similar apologia by Islamic religious leaders for what is written in the Koran or for what is preached in some mosques.
The Koran certainly has tracts hostile to Jews, but there are many different (even contradictory) views within Islam, and in the majority of epochs since it was established, it has not been especially fanatic. The commonality of practices and perspectives in Islam and Judaism has meant that conflict was often less, e.g. during much of the Ottoman era. Unfortunately, at present, Islam has become much more extreme, with Salafist views promoted world-wide by the Wahhabi sect under the auspices of Saudi Arabia. They were responsible for 9/11 and similar atrocities, such as that yesterday in France, where not just Jews are targeted. There is no unified hierarchy in Sunni Islam, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, to facilitate any apologia by Islamic religious leaders for what is written in the Koran, and any such statement is likely to make such a leader a target for Islamists.
Labour figures have criticised Jeremy Corbyn's decision to sack his shadow Northern Ireland secretary for calling for another EU referendum.
Labour peer Peter Hain described the dismissal as a "Stalinist purge".
If Owen Smith was digging nickel in the Siberian mines then that might have had some validity. Actually he has just returned to the backbenches.
How would the Conservative party have reacted if a Cabinet member had advocated a second referendum? Would that be fine and dandy or a sacking as part of a "Stalinist Purge"?
It is true publicly going against policy is not really unreasonable grounds for being sacked. The problem is others have argued for the same, and it upsets those who probably hoped the policy would shift. Heck, it might still shift.
Storm in a tea cup. Some backbenchers will whine but they cannot beat Corbyn. They know it and he knows it.
It's easy to make a less than credible defence In a statement, it only has to convince enough people it's not worth fighting on not convince everyone, but I wonder if Berger or Gapes or whoever will ask Corbyn about all this face to face to see how convincing he is in person.
Come to think of it isn't "I didn't notice the offensive parts' Trump's go to explanation if he links something?
The Smith stuff pdo baby has greater potential for trouble, given how many MPS and members probably want a second ref.
Maybe I am just an idiot but it wasn't obviously anti-semitic to me at first. Looked more anti capitalist.
The main thing I wondered about is the Illuminati symbol (or at least I think its that) which I have heard called an anti-semitic conspiracy or anti-semitic undertones but a lot of the video's I watched a few years ago (thought of them as movies like say the Da Vinci Code) with a few friends tended to cast a fairly wide net for those involved, Britain and America, the Royal family, the presidents were all big targets.
The other big part is I didn't know if the guys were supposed to be Jewish, although not knowing in itself is a clue to the difficulty to pin it down. I heard SO mention obviously they are but then I have heard that some of them are not.
I honestly can not tell the difference between the ones that are obviously Jewish or not.
There was actually one comment somewhere in there accusing it of being racist against white people, as I guess he thought the people in control looked white... I guess it is possible that Corbyn was peddling anti white racism by not disapproving of the mural as well?
My daughter (10), has declared herself an LA FC fan. My son (7, soon to be 8), claims that LA FC are newcomers and not a real team, and the only LA team is the Galaxy.
They are both want to go to the LA Galaxy vs LAFC game on Saturday.
Comments
But bar Corbyn’s jihad on the Jews and being in favour of unlimited immigration, there is no particular other reasons why the Islamic vote should be so heavily pro Labour.
https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/977441135307128832?s=21
Gapes.
1. to gaze stupidly or in openmouthed surprise or wonder
2. a parasitic disease of poultry and other birds, characterized by frequent gaping due to infestation of the trachea and bronchi with gapeworms
3. a fit of yawning.
Something there for everybody I think.
Listened to qualifying on the radio. Surprised how close it was in the first half of Q3. Rather relieved my decision not to back Verstappen for pole at 8 didn't end up looking silly. On the other hand, my decision not to tip Raikkonen to be top 3 in third practice did look silly.
Quite content with the Red Bull Constructors' tip as well. Right now, and it's very early days, they're looking in great shape. Qualifying should be their weakness, and Renault are emphasising reliability over performance, and Red Bull historically develops well over a season, and they have the best driver pairing. Far from certain, of course, but 6.2 feels too long to me.
However
Congrats to to OGH )etc) on founding this site and runnimng it for so many years.
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/977447116133027841?s=21
And happy belated returns to PB. I can't really recall when I first joined, it feels like it has been a part of my life forever. Must have been about 10 years ago. Huge amounts of chat, many, many good laughs, a bit of money on the side just to make it interesting (as Two tonne Ted would say) and a fantastic source of information and expertise on the stories of the day. I love it.
But surely Corbyn would rather be based in Leningrad than St Petersburg?
'twas two years after that I started offering regular F1 tips. Still amuses me that my first (half-)season was probably the best (maybe 2012 was better). And annoys me I didn't back my 70/1 Button for the 2009 title winning tip...
https://twitter.com/BBCChrisD/status/977137997010399232
It is the usual suspects such as Umunna who are making a fuss. Should the likes of Umunna still be Labour MPs, when their views diverge so far from most Labour party members?
As an aside, Ericsson was third in third practice, which was rather wet. I can't recall the precise odds but I think it was in the hundreds, so even at a fifth the odds, backing that would've been tasty. Next time there's a rainy practice it *might* be worth spraying 50p bets on the backmarkers to 'win' it.
As for Islam, it could be just as violent against both Jews and Christians when it chose. It allowed certain branches of both to live in peace in the Middle Ages if they paid an extra tax, but they were not allowed to settle where they liked and they were not allowed to marry Muslim women (marriage of non-Muslim women to Muslim men, by contrast, was encouraged).
It is unfortunately easy to find people who spread false information about Christian/Jewish or Christian/Muslim relations - Daniel Goldhagen springs to mind, as does Susan Zuccotti, as does Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, who refuse to consider any actions of the Catholic Church under Nazi rule as in any way beneficial to the Jews. I don't think this he first two do it entirely deliberately - they're just not very intelligent - while the last is definitely driven by anti-Christian feeling. But that doesn't mean you should swallow their propaganda.
The crowning irony is that modern anti-Semitism is a racial theory that has nothing to do with religion and had its origins in Social Darwinism. It is no coincidence that the most anti-Semitic country in Europe was France, which was also the most anti-Clerical.
Or had you forgotten than detail?
It seems to me that the current hatred of Jews amongst Islamists has been driven by the success and then the policies of Israel. Many of those policies are exceptionally brutal but then we don't live under the threat that they do. It is hardly surprising that the hatred caused by this brutality has caused hatred of all Jews. Doesn't make it right of course, particularly since many Jews in my experience have serious reservations about Israel's policies, especially in recent years.
Corbyn is not a clever man but he does instinctively support the underdog and the oppressed. It is not surprising that he has supported those who oppose Israel and it is not surprising that this has meant that he has associated with those who make anti-Semitic comments. I think this is a bit more complicated than charges of anti-Semitism might suggest.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/977459796361318403
Also - far too late the Pope admitted and apologised for the church’s historic error in its attitude to Jews and the liturgy was purged. There has - as far as I know - been no similar apologia by Islamic religious leaders for what is written in the Koran or for what is preached in some mosques.
It’s been a pleasure being part of the debate and a privilege to contribute.
Yad Vashem, which is an unbiased organisation dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust.
The difficulty with Corbyn’s views is that he claims to have principles but when his record is examined his support of those principles is in reality pretty wafer-thin. It would be truer to say that he likes some goups and does not care about others. Jews fall in the group he does not care about and therefore he is utterly indifferent to attacks on them, regardless of the source, type and offensiveness. Until it is pointed out and then he realises that it does not look good and he makes all sorts of inconsistent statements (some would call them lies) about not having seen or read the offensive material in question etc etc.
But it all feels as if he realises has been caught out and is trying to deal with the perception created rather than that he has a genuine understanding of why, for instance, no respectable, intelligent or decent politician ahould ever associate with Holocaust deniers.
You, on the other hand, are restoring to personal abuse and obfuscation to try and hide your mistake. I am afraid that is entirely typical of modern Labour. You have lied twice on this thread in support of a man who has been repeatedly revealed as a racist, hypocrite and liar already. Unfortunately that reveals you as prejudiced yourself. That's your prerogative but don't expect me to respect you for it.
I have to go out now. I do hope that gives you food for thought.
Storm in a tea cup. Some backbenchers will whine but they cannot beat Corbyn. They know it and he knows it.
Come to think of it isn't "I didn't notice the offensive parts' Trump's go to explanation if he links something?
The Smith stuff pdo baby has greater potential for trouble, given how many MPS and members probably want a second ref.
The main thing I wondered about is the Illuminati symbol (or at least I think its that) which I have heard called an anti-semitic conspiracy or anti-semitic undertones but a lot of the video's I watched a few years ago (thought of them as movies like say the Da Vinci Code) with a few friends tended to cast a fairly wide net for those involved, Britain and America, the Royal family, the presidents were all big targets.
The other big part is I didn't know if the guys were supposed to be Jewish, although not knowing in itself is a clue to the difficulty to pin it down. I heard SO mention obviously they are but then I have heard that some of them are not.
I honestly can not tell the difference between the ones that are obviously Jewish or not.
There was actually one comment somewhere in there accusing it of being racist against white people, as I guess he thought the people in control looked white... I guess it is possible that Corbyn was peddling anti white racism by not disapproving of the mural as well?