The referendum result won't be declared null and void whatever Brexit do now, or have done (unless they raise an army and invade London).
For the simple reason, it's exactly what a few conspiracy theorists believed would happen. "See, we told you they powers that be wold never allow the result to stand."
I don't mind a few rabid Remainers whistling in the dark, but you begin to worry about their mental state.
Let's forget all that and join together to make it work. I wish you all a happy Easter.
With the caveat that I know virtually nothing about horses, or racing, or horse racing, I have looked briefly at the list of horses for the Grand National this year, and I reckon there might be value in betting on Gold Present 25/1 and Total Recall 12/1.
A question occurs to me that has never occurred to me before: are top race horses all male, like the fastest human athletes are? Or are they a mixture of male and female? I seem to remember the commentators referring to fillies sometimes. The list in the link doesn't seem to indicate gender, except sometimes where the bla-bla-bla says "he" or "his".
With the caveat that I know virtually nothing about horses, or racing, or horse racing, I have looked briefly at the list of horses for the Grand National this year, and I reckon there might be value in betting on Gold Present 25/1 and Total Recall 12/1.
A question occurs to me that has never occurred to me before: are top race horses all male, like the fastest human athletes are? Or are they a mixture of male and female? I seem to remember the commentators referring to fillies sometimes. The list in the link doesn't seem to indicate gender, except sometimes where the bla-bla-bla says "he" or "his".
Check the results of Europe`s premier flat race L`Arc De Triomphe and you will find the winners record. Former ITV political reporter Robin Oakley racing tips always worth noting and he likes Caroles Destrier for Grand National favours fillies over colts
With the caveat that I know virtually nothing about horses, or racing, or horse racing, I have looked briefly at the list of horses for the Grand National this year, and I reckon there might be value in betting on Gold Present 25/1 and Total Recall 12/1.
A question occurs to me that has never occurred to me before: are top race horses all male, like the fastest human athletes are? Or are they a mixture of male and female? I seem to remember the commentators referring to fillies sometimes. The list in the link doesn't seem to indicate gender, except sometimes where the bla-bla-bla says "he" or "his".
The concept of would-be politicians - and even people connected with a party - having a 'political education' feels both funny and a little chilling. Especially having Momentum play a role in it...
Poltical education and political education officers are as long-standing a Labour tradition as the party itself (I've been a PEO myself), so I assume that you're not very familiar with it? The original idea was that lots of people joined the party, out of the general feeling that society needed to change to help the working class, who often weren't very well-educated in any way. The idea was to help them learn how politics worked, what sort of issues and dilemmas might come up, and how socialists were trying to solve them, perhaps in different ways.
Over the years the role has evolved more into facilitating debate on current issues - for instance, my CLP has invited the Jewish Labour Movement to send a speaker to discuss with us what's appropriate. I think we're doing the job of helping members address an issue that has been in the news and which may contain pitfalls that they've not thought of.
So long as the role doesn't involve imposing a specific set of views, I think it's entirely positive. And there are some basic rules - on tolerance, lack of prejudice, etc. - which actually we do need to impose, and that's partly what the piece you're criticising is arguing for. One can debate what those basics exactly - some are obvious, others less so - but that's interesting too.
General Washington was responsible for more British deaths than Donald Trump.
(edit: for all pedants out there spot the deliberate mistake)
Not when he was President!
He was hardly the most effective of generals either though.
I always found it amusing when the Americans were having their brouhaha over statues that people defended statues of Washington - like Lee, a slave owner, unlike Lee, one who didn't emancipate his slaves until he died - on the grounds that 'he wasn't a traitor.' He was a British army officer FFS!
The even more amusing irony however was that Lee was a very capable general who actually won a number of major battles. Washington was not. Princeton would barely be a skirmish by the standards of the ACW, but it was his only actual victory.
The accusations are largely related to her husband and his work outside of the Labour party before he started doing any work for her. Does this part even fall under Labours remit to investigate and take action on?
Whilst their actions (from her account) are motivated by Labour internal disputes they seem to have largely taken place outside of Labour. What exactly can Labour do about someone getting fired as a care worker?
Her dispute would probably be with Corbyn (partially) if he somehow blocked an investigation she asked for but I haven't seen any hint of that and from the sounds of the case I can understand why she might not have asked for one.
Do you believe she has asked Corbyn to do something to help her that it is within his power to do but he has not done?
If he has then fair enough but I have no evidence that is the case.
Also the people who his influence might affect are already supportive of her
It would seem to me however that if somebody made false allegations against an individual with the sole intention of ending that individual's career, that would be a matter for the police. Wasting police time should cover it.
Having read the LGO report, the representation of it and, indeed, the entire situation in Mrs Lewell-Buck's open letter is, shall we say, careful.
Her husband faced similar allegations of abuse from two separate families relating to his treatment of their relatives in care. He also faced allegations of abusing patients made by a whistleblower. Mrs Lewell-Buck describes these as "hearsay". They were not. The people making the allegations claim to have witnessed the behaviour.
The LGO investigated and found no evidence of a vendetta. They found some procedural errors, specifically that the council did not send the investigation report to Mr Lewell-Buck before the disciplinary meeting as required by their policy, the council did not accurately record how it cumulatively looked at the allegations, failed to put Mr Lewell-Buck's complaints through its complaints procedure and failed to inform him of his right to refer the matter to the LGO. They recommended that the council pay compensation of £400 and apologise for its failure to record the investigation properly. The LGO finds no fault with the council's decision.
Having read the LGO report, and as someone involved in safeguarding in a voluntary capacity, my view is that, with three separate, similar allegations of abuse, all made by people who witnessed the alleged abuse, any investigation is likely to conclude that Mr Lewell-Buck is an abuser. Mrs Lewell-Buck needs to accept this and stop firing random accusations of vendettas.
General Washington was responsible for more British deaths than Donald Trump.
(edit: for all pedants out there spot the deliberate mistake)
Not when he was President!
He was hardly the most effective of generals either though.
I always found it amusing when the Americans were having their brouhaha over statues that people defended statues of Washington - like Lee, a slave owner, unlike Lee, one who didn't emancipate his slaves until he died - on the grounds that 'he wasn't a traitor.' He was a British army officer FFS!
The even more amusing irony however was that Lee was a very capable general who actually won a number of major battles. Washington was not. Princeton would barely be a skirmish by the standards of the ACW, but it was his only actual victory.
'he wasn't a traitor.’ ! Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Having read the LGO report, the representation of it and, indeed, the entire situation in Mrs Lewell-Buck's open letter is, shall we say, careful.
Her husband faced similar allegations of abuse from two separate families relating to his treatment of their relatives in care. He also faced allegations of abusing patients made by a whistleblower. Mrs Lewell-Buck describes these as "hearsay". They were not. The people making the allegations claim to have witnessed the behaviour.
The LGO investigated and found no evidence of a vendetta. They found some procedural errors, specifically that the council did not send the investigation report to Mr Lewell-Buck before the disciplinary meeting as required by their policy, the council did not accurately record how it cumulatively looked at the allegations, failed to put Mr Lewell-Buck's complaints through its complaints procedure and failed to inform him of his right to refer the matter to the LGO. They recommended that the council pay compensation of £400 and apologise for its failure to record the investigation properly. The LGO finds no fault with the council's decision.
Having read the LGO report, and as someone involved in safeguarding in a voluntary capacity, my view is that, with three separate, similar allegations of abuse, all made by people who witnessed the alleged abuse, any investigation is likely to conclude that Mr Lewell-Buck is an abuser. Mrs Lewell-Buck needs to accept this and stop firing random accusations of vendettas.
I haven't read the full report. However, what is peculiar about this case is that there was an outside review which dismissed the allegations, and the council overruled that and upheld the complaint. Speaking as somebody else who is heavily involved in safeguarding, that strikes me as to say the least rather odd.
It is also perhaps important to remember that the role of the LGO is to ensure process is followed. They found it was not.
Edit - and the council are resisting the findings and refusing to pay the compensation, which I would also point out is to put it mildly a little unusual and may see them get into nasty trouble. That doesn't suggest it is purely about safeguarding.
General Washington was responsible for more British deaths than Donald Trump.
(edit: for all pedants out there spot the deliberate mistake)
Not when he was President!
He was hardly the most effective of generals either though.
I always found it amusing when the Americans were having their brouhaha over statues that people defended statues of Washington - like Lee, a slave owner, unlike Lee, one who didn't emancipate his slaves until he died - on the grounds that 'he wasn't a traitor.' He was a British army officer FFS!
The even more amusing irony however was that Lee was a very capable general who actually won a number of major battles. Washington was not. Princeton would barely be a skirmish by the standards of the ACW, but it was his only actual victory.
'he wasn't a traitor.’ ! Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Point of order but that's not how it works. If you're a member of such s group then you may see content but Facebook filters the content you see by a combination of what you interact with and what's popular. If you don't interact with someone or something then the posts tend to drop off your newsfeed.
Mr. Doethur, not up on such modernist tosh, but I've read in a few places that Washington's regarding as a more recent Quintus Fabius Maximus. Was he logistically astute but tactically mediocre, or is that excessively generous?
General Washington was responsible for more British deaths than Donald Trump.
(edit: for all pedants out there spot the deliberate mistake)
Not when he was President!
He was hardly the most effective of generals either though.
I always found it amusing when the Americans were having their brouhaha over statues that people defended statues of Washington - like Lee, a slave owner, unlike Lee, one who didn't emancipate his slaves until he died - on the grounds that 'he wasn't a traitor.' He was a British army officer FFS!
The even more amusing irony however was that Lee was a very capable general who actually won a number of major battles. Washington was not. Princeton would barely be a skirmish by the standards of the ACW, but it was his only actual victory.
'he wasn't a traitor.’ ! Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
An oldie, but a goodie your majesty!
As Aristophanes is said to have said; the old gags are the best ones.
What price Joshua for SPOTY? Although, he was red hot favourite last time and failed utterly. Which reminds me: is it a rule (or should it be one) that when there's no obvious winner, name recognition rather than recent achievement is the way to go?
On-topic: any probe would have to find something damning in short order, then the EU would have to agree we could theoretically remain under the old circumstances (if the rebate is thrown out or opt-outs are discarded people would go ballistic), then another vote would need to be very rapidly held, and then the result would have to count.
.... Whichever way that went, it would deepen divisions, I think.
The BBC try to influence SPOTY although ironically last year Mo Farah won it at 33/1 as everyone had assumed he would never win it given he has stronger credentials in previous years.There can be a nationalistic vote for Scots,Ulster or Welsh and note if the BBC are rooting for one as when the relatively overated Ryan Giggs won. Giggs was a one club player who never played in an international tournament.The best British soccer players are ones who have proved themselves abroad and done it in major tournaments.From modern times that leaves er.....Gary Lineker. Gazza never really did in Italy whilst Beckham, Hoddle, Keegan, Mcmanaman ,Souness , Trevor Francis and Chris Waddle rarely produced their club form in tournaments. Gareth Bale has lost his way abroad and did not play that well in Euro 2016 despite Wales success.
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Well we have have good evidence that Corbyn commented on the mural that was in the news last week, and we also have good evidence of McDonnell making comments about someone calling for a political opponent to be lynched.
Corbynite Twitter and Facebook accounts are also completely infested with highly abusive language, for them to say they don’t notice it can only be willful ignorance.
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Point of order but that's not how it works. If you're a member of such s group then you may see content but Facebook filters the content you see by a combination of what you interact with and what's popular. If you don't interact with someone or something then the posts tend to drop off your newsfeed.
Yes - but there is zero way that they can have looked at the Facebook feeds of those involved to state with any confidence that none of the abusive material had ever made it through the filters. It is just not possible.
And so it would have been far better to have said
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
As there is a fair chance that they could have established this - though the endorsement part is far harder to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. As you don't have to click 'like' to actually like a post.
Mr. Doethur, not up on such modernist tosh, but I've read in a few places that Washington's regarding as a more recent Quintus Fabius Maximus. Was he logistically astute but tactically mediocre, or is that excessively generous?
He held the continental army together and reorganised it. Both were achievements although neither should have been beyond any competent colonel.
But in a battle situation he was pretty hopeless. There was one time he decided to swim a river to surprise an enemy camp. When asked what might happen to the men swimming in uniform, he said they should strip naked. When asked what they would do with their weapons, he decided they would carry knives in their mouths. When it was pointed out the river was so cold it actually had ice in it, he suggested keeping up a brisk stroke.
While a bunch of naked, frozen men wielding knives would undoubtedly have surprised the enemy, I am not sure it would have had quite desired military effect. Some may of course have died laughing, but that wasn't quite the point.
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Well we have have good evidence that Corbyn commented on the mural that was in the news last week, and we also have good evidence of McDonnell making comments about someone calling for a political opponent to be lynched.
Corbynite Twitter and Facebook accounts are also completely infested with highly abusive language, for them to say they don’t notice it can only be willful ignorance.
Will they break down in tears if they're banned for twelve months and not considered for the Shadow Cabinet for another year?
Anyway, I have to go. I wish everyone a very happy Easter.
Far more importantly today the Royal Air Force celebrate their centenary. Our country owes a vast debt of gratitude to those whose gave their last measure of devotion in the service of the nation and to those who were, are and will be prepared to do likewise.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Have you read the Boris article to which you refer? Do you know what it said?
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Have you read the Boris article to which you refer? Do you know what it said?
It is maddening ironic when people make the reference but haven’t read the article...
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Labour lying about not seeing anti-semitism? Who would have thunk it....
Although, delving into the background, I'm coming round to the view that Labour isn't full of anti-semites.
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Labour lying about not seeing anti-semitism? Who would have thunk it....
Although, delving into the background, I'm coming round to the view that Labour isn't full of anti-semites.
Just complete twats....
I am not sure an irrational dislike of jews and twattishness is necessarily mutually exclusive.
However if the maomentumer who was laying into Timmy the other day on twitter is representative, not the sharpish tools in the box.
The concept of would-be politicians - and even people connected with a party - having a 'political education' feels both funny and a little chilling. Especially having Momentum play a role in it...
Over the years the role has evolved more into facilitating debate on current issues - for instance, my CLP has invited the Jewish Labour Movement to send a speaker to discuss with us what's appropriate. I think we're doing the job of helping members address an issue that has been in the news and which may contain pitfalls that they've not thought of.
So long as the role doesn't involve imposing a specific set of views, I think it's entirely positive. And there are some basic rules - on tolerance, lack of prejudice, etc. - which actually we do need to impose, and that's partly what the piece you're criticising is arguing for. One can debate what those basics exactly - some are obvious, others less so - but that's interesting too.
Not got a hope of solving the problem though, as the very members who need 'educating' are actively hostile to those asking them to reconsider their views. Plus, nothing whatsoever can move on until Corbyn admits his own personal culpability for his own extensive history of encouraging and enabling anti-Semites - taking tea with Raed Salah, Simon Sizer, Paul Eisen, PressTV et al. Until he admits that he has his own blindspot and that his actions over the years have played a part in legitimising hate on the hard left, why should his supporters think blanket denunciations or zero torelance of offering tacit backing for those guilty of anti-Semitism apply to them? After all, they don't appear to apply to the leader - who still gets to go around explaining that he's the ultimate anti-racist despite having done these things in the past and ignored people sounding the alarm about his supporters' level of anti-Semitism for years before being dragged kicking and screaming into cursory action. Why should anyone believe it's not more than a bit of political PR when he refuses to accept, he personally has behaved appallingly on this?
In fact, the problem will continue to get worse as those who raise anti-Semitism and point out actions that are unacceptable, they'll be accused of conspiring against St. Jeremy as they're awkward for the dear leader due to his own feet of clay. The longer this goes on, the nastier the party I once loved is getting. He is a huge part of the problem no amount of political education can solve.
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Point of order but that's not how it works. If you're a member of such s group then you may see content but Facebook filters the content you see by a combination of what you interact with and what's popular. If you don't interact with someone or something then the posts tend to drop off your newsfeed.
Yes - but there is zero way that they can have looked at the Facebook feeds of those involved to state with any confidence that none of the abusive material had ever made it through the filters. It is just not possible.
And so it would have been far better to have said
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
As there is a fair chance that they could have established this - though the endorsement part is far harder to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. As you don't have to click 'like' to actually like a post.
Morning all,
You are missing the use of Hard Left Logic. It is a fact that no one in the two leaders officers saw any such material, because if they had seen it, they would have removed themselves from the list/group. QED.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Have you read the Boris article to which you refer? Do you know what it said?
It is maddening ironic when people make the reference but haven’t read the article...
Yes of course I read it - its appalling. Lets widen it out:
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" and "They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
He isn't quoting anyone else, he is speaking as himself. Read it in his voice and its authentic Pfeffel.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Have you read the Boris article to which you refer? Do you know what it said?
It is maddening ironic when people make the reference but haven’t read the article...
Yes of course I read it - its appalling. Lets widen it out:
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" and "They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
He isn't quoting anyone else, he is speaking as himself. Read it in his voice and its authentic Pfeffel.
I think your irony meter needs re-calibrating.....
(Or binning.)
EDIT But he should certainly be pulled up on suggesting that HM the Queen might be going to the Congo, in the same sentence as talking of the Commonwealth. Neither the Democratic Republic of Congo (Belgium's former colony) nor the Republic of Congo (France's) are or have been Commonwealth members.
Wonder how many will be burnt out by the time of the next election? 4 and a half years as a candidate! And don't even know what boundaries the election will be fought on yet...
Mr. B, that's a nice neutral headline. It's also less than splendid that they use inverted commas like that, when they did the same for the hero (or 'hero', as the BBC headline had it) French police officer who exchanged himself for a female hostage.
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Point of order but that's not how it works. If you're a member of such s group then you may see content but Facebook filters the content you see by a combination of what you interact with and what's popular. If you don't interact with someone or something then the posts tend to drop off your newsfeed.
Yes - but there is zero way that they can have looked at the Facebook feeds of those involved to state with any confidence that none of the abusive material had ever made it through the filters. It is just not possible.
And so it would have been far better to have said
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
As there is a fair chance that they could have established this - though the endorsement part is far harder to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. As you don't have to click 'like' to actually like a post.
Morning all,
You are missing the use of Hard Left Logic. It is a fact that no one in the two leaders officers saw any such material, because if they had seen it, they would have removed themselves from the list/group. QED.
Labour desperately need to hire an external PR company specialising in social media, to go though all these groups, get the dodgy ones shut down and monitor the rest 24/7.
Every single statement from Corbyn’s office in the past week has done nothing except add to the hole-digging. Corbyn himself needs to delete every message he wrote online before he became leader, although enough adversaries (hi Guido) have probably copied it all away by now anyway.
The outcry about anti-semitism in the Labour Party has worrying implications for freedom of speech.
Reading the Sunday Times this morning, it seems that expression of opinion (Jews control the world economy, the holocaust was exaggerated) are being bracketed with incitement to violence (“hit her with a brick”) without taken care to distinguish the two.
Expressions of opinion should be protected, however abhorrent, and argued against. The silencing of opinion by demanding that it be banned, or threatening prosecution, is always more dangerous than the opinion itself.
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
Wonder how many will be burnt out by the time of the next election? 4 and a half years as a candidate! And don't even know what boundaries the election will be fought on yet...
But the boundary changes are an irrelevance.
The selected candidate will in all likelihood be the candidate for the successor seat, so they need to get the visibility now.
With redrawn boundaries you could argue the incumbent MP loses their incumbency bonus, or some of it at least.
Wonder how many will be burnt out by the time of the next election? 4 and a half years as a candidate! And don't even know what boundaries the election will be fought on yet...
We do - the current ones. But I do agree, a PPS becomes a target for anything they say or do - and even worse what they don't say and do.
It's bad enough being a councillor. I'm away from home this weekend having had nothing in the diary. Found out yesterday from a fellow councillor that my council has organised a tree planting ceremony today for the RAF (as the town is mostly built on a former RAF base). Not that the ruling independent group bothered to advise any Labour councillors - they will still comment negatively on our non-attendance. And thats just as town (parish) council level. Imagine being PPS for 4 years...
Britain is leaving the EU on 29th March 2019. The public is bored to tears with Brexit process stories. This will change nothing.
Perhaps. But what is the point of having the rules if parties and campaigns can simply ignore them with no prospect of the result being overturned?
Where rules are broken there should be consequences for that, which ever side broke them.
But the talk of delegitimisation does not stand up to scrutiny, because unfortunately spending rules get broken all the time and we don't rerun every election as a result. It's very very rare to rerun in fact. So a proportionate response is needed.
That's not ignoring the story, but the crying wolf of how the legitimacy is gone is patently absurd unless we do start rerunning every election where rules were exceeded or broken.
It's quite clearly based on the hope that since the public have not yet changed their mind, that the law can hold things up until they hopefully do.
Unfortunately as has been pointed out the referendum was legally irrelevant (though of course politically and practically it was anything but irrelevant) to our constitutional process for leaving.
A majority of MPs need convincing we should rerun the vote or otherwise halt Brexit. With a senior labour figure sacked just for advocating a vote on the final deal, that presently looks unlikely unless the public shifts it's view by the million. Will this stuff do that ? Given the way all parties beached spending rules I doubt it.
And as a warning note, if we halted things and it turns out the other campaign breached rules too? How do you punish both by only giving one what they want? People hoping this stuff works might find it effective at undermining them too.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Have you read the Boris article to which you refer? Do you know what it said?
It is maddening ironic when people make the reference but haven’t read the article...
Yes of course I read it - its appalling. Lets widen it out:
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" and "They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
He isn't quoting anyone else, he is speaking as himself. Read it in his voice and its authentic Pfeffel.
He is describing the attitudes of a subset of the international aid community
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
You can hardy boo-hoo about Labour being caught up in a furore about criminal expressions of hate when many of those suppression of hate laws were passed by Labour....
Mr. Doethur, not up on such modernist tosh, but I've read in a few places that Washington's regarding as a more recent Quintus Fabius Maximus. Was he logistically astute but tactically mediocre, or is that excessively generous?
He held the continental army together and reorganised it. Both were achievements although neither should have been beyond any competent colonel...
Hardly. Washington does not seem to have been particularly bright (or tactically astute), but his leadership skills seem to have been remarkable, holding together in war and peace a coalition of extremely strong willed and argumentative individuals. And somehow he seems to have made all the right decisions at critical times - not least abdicating supreme power twice (at the end of the revolutionary war, and at the end of his second term)...
Nick Cohen also notes that the Orbán campaign, Labour anti-Semitism and the xenophobic lies told in the referendum campaign are all of a piece. Which of course they are.
The third of these seems a much more uncomfortable topic for some on here than the other two, but the referendum campaign shows that xenophobia works. We are now seeing that unfold.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Her original challenge re A50 was a worthy and useful one, I say that as a leaver.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Have you read the Boris article to which you refer? Do you know what it said?
It is maddening ironic when people make the reference but haven’t read the article...
Yes of course I read it - its appalling. Lets widen it out:
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" and "They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
He isn't quoting anyone else, he is speaking as himself. Read it in his voice and its authentic Pfeffel.
He is describing the attitudes of a subset of the international aid community
Yes, the international aid community is noted for using terms like piccaninnies and water melon smiles. Famous for it.
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
You can hardy boo-hoo about Labour being caught up in a furore about criminal expressions of hate when many of those suppression of hate laws were passed by Labour....
That the suppressors of free speech are now being hoist upon their own petard is hardly a justification for the suppression of free speech.
Mr. B, that's a nice neutral headline. It's also less than splendid that they use inverted commas like that, when they did the same for the hero (or 'hero', as the BBC headline had it) French police officer who exchanged himself for a female hostage.
I think it would be nicely ironic, Mr.D, but sadly I think in both cases they are simply marks indicating an actual quote.
The outcry about anti-semitism in the Labour Party has worrying implications for freedom of speech.
Reading the Sunday Times this morning, it seems that expression of opinion (Jews control the world economy, the holocaust was exaggerated) are being bracketed with incitement to violence (“hit her with a brick”) without taken care to distinguish the two.
Expressions of opinion should be protected, however abhorrent, and argued against. The silencing of opinion by demanding that it be banned, or threatening prosecution, is always more dangerous than the opinion itself.
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
Abhorrent opinions should not be criminalised. But, it's entirely fair to call out the people who express them.
The outcry about anti-semitism in the Labour Party has worrying implications for freedom of speech.
Reading the Sunday Times this morning, it seems that expression of opinion (Jews control the world economy, the holocaust was exaggerated) are being bracketed with incitement to violence (“hit her with a brick”) without taken care to distinguish the two.
Expressions of opinion should be protected, however abhorrent, and argued against. The silencing of opinion by demanding that it be banned, or threatening prosecution, is always more dangerous than the opinion itself.
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
Freedom of speech is very important and what is criminalised can be ridiculous sometimes. I eould certainly prefer risking offence, even gross offence, than too much expansion of what us chargable. But if a party wants to be stricter than the criminal law that should be ok, these people are representing the party and the party can set the line.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Her original challenge re A50 was a worthy and useful one, I say that as a leaver.
.
I agree. It was a case of real constitutional importance.
Mr. 56, an interesting point. Reminds me of Lammy bleating about calling the police because of a Leave account (forget which) making an, ahem, less than subtle post about the Muslim vote and anti-Semitism.
It'd be great if we had a law defending free speech. But I'll believe it when I see it.
The outcry about anti-semitism in the Labour Party has worrying implications for freedom of speech.
Reading the Sunday Times this morning, it seems that expression of opinion (Jews control the world economy, the holocaust was exaggerated) are being bracketed with incitement to violence (“hit her with a brick”) without taken care to distinguish the two.
Expressions of opinion should be protected, however abhorrent, and argued against. The silencing of opinion by demanding that it be banned, or threatening prosecution, is always more dangerous than the opinion itself.
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
Totally wrong. For a start there have also been umpteen incitements to violence against Labour MPs, with Jewish ones baring the brunt - Ruth Smeeth received police protection.
Secondly, in relation to Labour, whether or not someone has committed an arrestable offence is immaterial, hence the lack of distinction. It's that it's astonishing that under Corbyn's leadership Labour, a supposedly anti-racist party, has gained a significant core of members who are out and out racists, and a much larger one who are prepared to excuse such behaviour - many of whom specifically use the leader to justify their behaviour. That's terrifying and doesn't relate to free speech - as the David Irving case showed, he was allowed to deny the holocaust, what he wasn't allowed to do was silence those who called him a racist who should have no place in public life for doing so.
Not sure the Emma Lewell-Buck vs South Shields CLP is much to do with Momentum - MPs falling out with the CLP is a longstanding tradition. Nor is Political Education Officer a scary new role, like Nick I have been one before Momentum was a twinkle in Jon Lansman's eye.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Her original challenge re A50 was a worthy and useful one, I say that as a leaver.
Indeed. It closed off a number of avenues that could be used to undermine the decision to leave the EU, including what is now trying to be alleged about campaign spending nearly two years later.
"The avuncular, beneficent uncle has slunk away. In his place stands a venal, cowardly, anti-Semitic-enabling bully."
So history suggests (along with England playing today) that Spurs are going to get absolutely pummelled at Stamford Bridge later on?
That said I quite like a flutter on Spurs oh and Dirty Dele Alli to get sent off.
Indeed - 27 years of pain at the bridge BUT English cricket actually had a decent day so who knows for once we might turn up away to a top 6 team ......
This is the bit where Labour are just not telling the truth:
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
Point of order but that's not how it works. If you're a member of such s group then you may see content but Facebook filters the content you see by a combination of what you interact with and what's popular. If you don't interact with someone or something then the posts tend to drop off your newsfeed.
Yes - but there is zero way that they can have looked at the Facebook feeds of those involved to state with any confidence that none of the abusive material had ever made it through the filters. It is just not possible.
And so it would have been far better to have said
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
As there is a fair chance that they could have established this - though the endorsement part is far harder to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. As you don't have to click 'like' to actually like a post.
Morning all,
You are missing the use of Hard Left Logic. It is a fact that no one in the two leaders officers saw any such material, because if they had seen it, they would have removed themselves from the list/group. QED.
Labour desperately need to hire an external PR company specialising in social media, to go though all these groups, get the dodgy ones shut down and monitor the rest 24/7.
I was astonished after the first dodgy groups he belonged to were raised that his office did not do just that. Apparently it might be trickier to see all the groups ever casually joined than I thought, but it surely could be done, and it shows a bit of effort, if not much.
A warning for Labour moderates, still clinging on:
"To those of you in the Labour party who might hope to fight, fight, and fight again – as a previous leader of yours once put it – to save the party you love, please take a word of warning from a person who has some experience of this: you scarcely know what you’re up against. You are well-meaning amateurs fighting relentless, brutal professionals."
Comments
For the simple reason, it's exactly what a few conspiracy theorists believed would happen. "See, we told you they powers that be wold never allow the result to stand."
I don't mind a few rabid Remainers whistling in the dark, but you begin to worry about their mental state.
Let's forget all that and join together to make it work. I wish you all a happy Easter.
https://www.timeform.com/grand-national/runners
A question occurs to me that has never occurred to me before: are top race horses all male, like the fastest human athletes are? Or are they a mixture of male and female? I seem to remember the commentators referring to fillies sometimes. The list in the link doesn't seem to indicate gender, except sometimes where the bla-bla-bla says "he" or "his".
Former ITV political reporter Robin Oakley racing tips always worth noting and he likes Caroles Destrier for Grand National
favours fillies over colts
Over the years the role has evolved more into facilitating debate on current issues - for instance, my CLP has invited the Jewish Labour Movement to send a speaker to discuss with us what's appropriate. I think we're doing the job of helping members address an issue that has been in the news and which may contain pitfalls that they've not thought of.
So long as the role doesn't involve imposing a specific set of views, I think it's entirely positive. And there are some basic rules - on tolerance, lack of prejudice, etc. - which actually we do need to impose, and that's partly what the piece you're criticising is arguing for. One can debate what those basics exactly - some are obvious, others less so - but that's interesting too.
I always found it amusing when the Americans were having their brouhaha over statues that people defended statues of Washington - like Lee, a slave owner, unlike Lee, one who didn't emancipate his slaves until he died - on the grounds that 'he wasn't a traitor.' He was a British army officer FFS!
The even more amusing irony however was that Lee was a very capable general who actually won a number of major battles. Washington was not. Princeton would barely be a skirmish by the standards of the ACW, but it was his only actual victory.
Her husband faced similar allegations of abuse from two separate families relating to his treatment of their relatives in care. He also faced allegations of abusing patients made by a whistleblower. Mrs Lewell-Buck describes these as "hearsay". They were not. The people making the allegations claim to have witnessed the behaviour.
The LGO investigated and found no evidence of a vendetta. They found some procedural errors, specifically that the council did not send the investigation report to Mr Lewell-Buck before the disciplinary meeting as required by their policy, the council did not accurately record how it cumulatively looked at the allegations, failed to put Mr Lewell-Buck's complaints through its complaints procedure and failed to inform him of his right to refer the matter to the LGO. They recommended that the council pay compensation of £400 and apologise for its failure to record the investigation properly. The LGO finds no fault with the council's decision.
Having read the LGO report, and as someone involved in safeguarding in a voluntary capacity, my view is that, with three separate, similar allegations of abuse, all made by people who witnessed the alleged abuse, any investigation is likely to conclude that Mr Lewell-Buck is an abuser. Mrs Lewell-Buck needs to accept this and stop firing random accusations of vendettas.
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has seen, posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
There is zero way they can state that with any accuracy. If you are a member of such a group, then the content will come up in your Facebook feed. Trying to claim that that these staff members haven't seen it is ludicrous.
It might seem a minor point but if you are fighting such a political storm you have to do so with stuff that cannot be challenged. And to claim that none of the staff members mentioned saw this material is just ridiculous.
It is also perhaps important to remember that the role of the LGO is to ensure process is followed. They found it was not.
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/politics/exclusive-husband-of-south-shields-mp-branded-perpetrator-of-elder-abuse-after-care-probe-1-9078881
Edit - and the council are resisting the findings and refusing to pay the compensation, which I would also point out is to put it mildly a little unusual and may see them get into nasty trouble. That doesn't suggest it is purely about safeguarding.
Giggs was a one club player who never played in an international tournament.The best British soccer players are ones who have proved themselves abroad and done it in major tournaments.From modern times that leaves er.....Gary Lineker.
Gazza never really did in Italy whilst Beckham, Hoddle, Keegan, Mcmanaman ,Souness , Trevor Francis and Chris Waddle rarely produced their club form in tournaments.
Gareth Bale has lost his way abroad and did not play that well in Euro 2016 despite Wales success.
Corbynite Twitter and Facebook accounts are also completely infested with highly abusive language, for them to say they don’t notice it can only be willful ignorance.
And so it would have been far better to have said
"Labour also told the Sunday Times that no-one in Mr Corbyn or Mr McDonnell's offices has posted or endorsed anti-Semitic or abusive messages."
As there is a fair chance that they could have established this - though the endorsement part is far harder to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. As you don't have to click 'like' to actually like a post.
But in a battle situation he was pretty hopeless. There was one time he decided to swim a river to surprise an enemy camp. When asked what might happen to the men swimming in uniform, he said they should strip naked. When asked what they would do with their weapons, he decided they would carry knives in their mouths. When it was pointed out the river was so cold it actually had ice in it, he suggested keeping up a brisk stroke.
While a bunch of naked, frozen men wielding knives would undoubtedly have surprised the enemy, I am not sure it would have had quite desired military effect. Some may of course have died laughing, but that wasn't quite the point.
Fortunately Hamilton talked him out of it.
Incidentally, how come Ladbrokes are closing your account? Meant to ask yesterday.
Anyway, I have to go. I wish everyone a very happy Easter.
At this rate they'll be struggling to find 11 fit men.
Mr. Charles, if he invites you out to sushi, I'd suggest declining.
As for the law vs leaving the EU - people need to let it go. Even if hard evidence came out that Nigel Farage AND Boris (Piccaninnies and Watermelon Smiles no evidence of racism in the Tory Party) Johnson were Russian agents executing Putin's plot to fracture the EU, people would STILL say "we voted leave, shut up"
Had a lively discussion with my Essicksinnit brother in law yesterday, an enthusiastic leaver. Like so many leavers he didn't vote for a specific issue other than "something needs to change". He won't be told that he was lied to by an overspend. Gina Millar needs to find a new hobby
Although, delving into the background, I'm coming round to the view that Labour isn't full of anti-semites.
Just complete twats....
However if the maomentumer who was laying into Timmy the other day on twitter is representative, not the sharpish tools in the box.
In fact, the problem will continue to get worse as those who raise anti-Semitism and point out actions that are unacceptable, they'll be accused of conspiring against St. Jeremy as they're awkward for the dear leader due to his own feet of clay. The longer this goes on, the nastier the party I once loved is getting. He is a huge part of the problem no amount of political education can solve.
You are missing the use of Hard Left Logic. It is a fact that no one in the two leaders officers saw any such material, because if they had seen it, they would have removed themselves from the list/group. QED.
"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies" and "They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."
He isn't quoting anyone else, he is speaking as himself. Read it in his voice and its authentic Pfeffel.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/980365548600033280
(Or binning.)
EDIT But he should certainly be pulled up on suggesting that HM the Queen might be going to the Congo, in the same sentence as talking of the Commonwealth. Neither the Democratic Republic of Congo (Belgium's former colony) nor the Republic of Congo (France's) are or have been Commonwealth members.
"Labour Party 'not connected' to abusive anti-Jewish messages..."
"And as a result [Labour] has now become the largest, most high-profile racist organisation in the nation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5566239/DAN-HODGES-Corbyns-Labour-isnt-bad-BNP-WORSE.html#ixzz5BPQ7d0Tq
Every single statement from Corbyn’s office in the past week has done nothing except add to the hole-digging. Corbyn himself needs to delete every message he wrote online before he became leader, although enough adversaries (hi Guido) have probably copied it all away by now anyway.
Reading the Sunday Times this morning, it seems that expression of opinion (Jews control the world economy, the holocaust was exaggerated) are being bracketed with incitement to violence (“hit her with a brick”) without taken care to distinguish the two.
Expressions of opinion should be protected, however abhorrent, and argued against. The silencing of opinion by demanding that it be banned, or threatening prosecution, is always more dangerous than the opinion itself.
Of course, the criminalisation of expressions of hate has shifted the balance away from feeedom of speech towards its suppression.
The selected candidate will in all likelihood be the candidate for the successor seat, so they need to get the visibility now.
With redrawn boundaries you could argue the incumbent MP loses their incumbency bonus, or some of it at least.
EDIT Also, sad to see Santa Claus moonlighting for the rouble....
It's bad enough being a councillor. I'm away from home this weekend having had nothing in the diary. Found out yesterday from a fellow councillor that my council has organised a tree planting ceremony today for the RAF (as the town is mostly built on a former RAF base). Not that the ruling independent group bothered to advise any Labour councillors - they will still comment negatively on our non-attendance. And thats just as town (parish) council level. Imagine being PPS for 4 years...
But the talk of delegitimisation does not stand up to scrutiny, because unfortunately spending rules get broken all the time and we don't rerun every election as a result. It's very very rare to rerun in fact. So a proportionate response is needed.
That's not ignoring the story, but the crying wolf of how the legitimacy is gone is patently absurd unless we do start rerunning every election where rules were exceeded or broken.
It's quite clearly based on the hope that since the public have not yet changed their mind, that the law can hold things up until they hopefully do.
Unfortunately as has been pointed out the referendum was legally irrelevant (though of course politically and practically it was anything but irrelevant) to our constitutional process for leaving.
A majority of MPs need convincing we should rerun the vote or otherwise halt Brexit. With a senior labour figure sacked just for advocating a vote on the final deal, that presently looks unlikely unless the public shifts it's view by the million. Will this stuff do that ? Given the way all parties beached spending rules I doubt it.
And as a warning note, if we halted things and it turns out the other campaign breached rules too? How do you punish both by only giving one what they want? People hoping this stuff works might find it effective at undermining them too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/31/in-hungary-exploitation-of-mythical-enemy-is-poisoning-politics
An old Jewish joke (relevant though not very funny)
Two strangers sharing a sleeping carriage on the Vladivostok Express
Abe-I was just about to send a postcard to my daughter but would you believe it...I've forgotten my pen
Victor-Don't worry I've got one you can use
Abe-and in the rush I forgot to buy a postcard...
Victor-Well that's lucky I have three and I only need two
Abe-Thank you so much....
Victor-It's my pleasure...
Abe-I can't believe it but my wife seems to have forgotten to pack my pyjamas....
Victor-Don't worry old boy I've got a spare pair and you're more than welcome to use them...
Abe-That's most generous..
Abe-Would you believe it-she's also forgotten to pack my toothbrush! I wonder if I could use yours?
Victor-I'm really sorry but I must say no.....
A week later Abe arrives home and is greeted by his wife.
"Well Abe how was the trip?".
Abe- It wasn't too bad..... but DID I meet an anti Semite!
Washington does not seem to have been particularly bright (or tactically astute), but his leadership skills seem to have been remarkable, holding together in war and peace a coalition of extremely strong willed and argumentative individuals.
And somehow he seems to have made all the right decisions at critical times - not least abdicating supreme power twice (at the end of the revolutionary war, and at the end of his second term)...
Proper.
"The avuncular, beneficent uncle has slunk away. In his place stands a venal, cowardly, anti-Semitic-enabling bully."
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/980193806984376320?s=21
The third of these seems a much more uncomfortable topic for some on here than the other two, but the referendum campaign shows that xenophobia works. We are now seeing that unfold.
https://twitter.com/smitharrytv/status/980342228378845185
I agree. It was a case of real constitutional importance.
That said I quite like a flutter on Spurs oh and Dirty Dele Alli to get sent off.
It'd be great if we had a law defending free speech. But I'll believe it when I see it.
Secondly, in relation to Labour, whether or not someone has committed an arrestable offence is immaterial, hence the lack of distinction. It's that it's astonishing that under Corbyn's leadership Labour, a supposedly anti-racist party, has gained a significant core of members who are out and out racists, and a much larger one who are prepared to excuse such behaviour - many of whom specifically use the leader to justify their behaviour. That's terrifying and doesn't relate to free speech - as the David Irving case showed, he was allowed to deny the holocaust, what he wasn't allowed to do was silence those who called him a racist who should have no place in public life for doing so.
The actual decision to leave the EU was taken by Parliament via the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Any further legal challenges need to be able to declare that Act of Parliament to be invalid. It makes no reference whatsoever to the referendum.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0132/cbill_2016-20170132_en_2.htm#l1g1
"To those of you in the Labour party who might hope to fight, fight, and fight again – as a previous leader of yours once put it – to save the party you love, please take a word of warning from a person who has some experience of this: you scarcely know what you’re up against. You are well-meaning amateurs fighting relentless, brutal professionals."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/31/corbyns-accidental-revolution-has-put-old-stalinist-gang-charge/