You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I went to Cambodia a few years back. Visited the killing fields so I'm a member of the Khmer Rouge.
Stood behind Ron Atkinson in the airport check-in. Must be a racist.
Hurray! Everyone above and below in Highgate cemetery is a Marxist.
Oborne (Telegraph, Spectator)
This basically sums it up for me.
The main thing is that he is not vocal enough about his defense - he's just seen by the public as weak, to add to his already being seen as duplicitous.
It's pretty obvious to any observer that he's a clueless fool, just look at his bike setup :
says the man that rides a motorised unicycle thing around in public...... 😉
The main thing is that he is not vocal enough about his defense
That's a no-win scenario though. Personally I would love to see him take on the idiots and aggressively defend his stance not just on his attendance or not at funerals/memorials/conferences/tea-partys/whatever but also his views on Israeli policy, and how the media and his opponents are conspiring in a smear campaign.
However I'm not sure the general public will understand it if he did. Other than the fact that the media and his labour party critics would wail that they were right, he'd be seen as defending an indefensible position and being a weak leader for portraying himself as the victim of a hostile media.
He's in a big hole with this. He successfully batted away the attacks on the IRA and being a Marxist/Communist/Militant, but this is on another level and I think he's losing this battle. I suppose he's hoping that come election time when he can bypass the media and present who he really is, people will see through it like they did with the other stuff.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/jeremy-corbyn-honesty-labour-wreath-mess
An interesting take on how Corbyn should handle the accusations against him. I'm inclined to agree, Corbyn's biggest strength is his integrity and authenticity. People will forgive a lot if you're honest about it.
Even the BBC admitting that the Daily Mail are bulshitting
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45196409
Quite.
But that doesn't really matter to a lot of people - and that's the point. What has been achieved here?
The heat has been taken off of Boris.
The people who want to believe in the Fail have heard what they want/need to hear anyway, so have tuned out.
A lot of other people with the attention span of a gnat have also taken away a vague impression and this has become 'fact' for them. They don't want to listen to long explanations - soundbites are where it is at for them.
The precision required to refute this stuff properly in the eyes of people who want things doing properly is just perceived as 'noise' and 'expert opinion' to people who just can't be bothered to think.
I can't remember the exact dialogue from Blackadder II and the counting beans scene, but Blackadder just ends up pleading: "Please try to have some thoughts, thinking is so important".
I despair.
Now there are calls from Zac Goldsmith and others to throw the tory peer who attended this event out of the tory party
"In their letter to the Conservative party board, Halfon and Goldsmith wrote: “We cannot, as a party, rightly and robustly criticise the leader of the opposition for his attendance at this conference while allowing the attendance of a Conservative peer at the same event to pass without comment or complaint. To do so would be to indulge in hypocrisy and double standards.”
"A Conservative peer has said that calls for him to be expelled from the party because he attended the same Palestinian rights conference as Jeremy Corbyn are motivated by Islamophobia and his criticism of Boris Johnson.
Lord Sheikh has faced criticism for attending the 2014 event in Tunisia"
Corbyn’s biggest strength is his integrity and authenticity
countered by his niavety and clear lack of leadership - anytime there is an issue he just remians out of public view waiting for it to blow over.
anytime there is an issue he just reminas out of public view
Sensible adult refuses to get sucked in to farcical media smear campaigns.. How very, very dare he!
Turnerguy - he doesn't tho. What is happening is he is not given a platform by the media. I read what he actually says and its clear and concise.
Sensible adult refuses to get sucked in to farcical media smear campaigns.. How very, very dare he!
So what are his opinions on Brexit - I would love to hear them along with what policy he wants Labour to follow. After all he is the Leader
Now there are calls from Zac Goldsmith and others to throw the tory peer who attended this event out of the tory party
Card-carrying Islamophobe wants to throw Muslim out of the party. Surprise!!
Turnerguy – he doesn’t tho. What is happening is he is not given a platform by the media. I read what he actually says and its clear and concise.
rubbish - his team are adept at getting their message (or mis-message) out on social media whenever it suits them, with the advantage that he can broadcast a message and because it isn't an interview he can't be challenged.
what like this you mean?
rubbish – his team are adept at getting their message (or mis-message) out on social media whenever it suits them, with the advantage that he can broadcast a message and because it isn’t an interview he can’t be challenged.
He gets it out on social media because that is the platform not controlled by right wing nutters. No point trying to go against the media as you can't win when they have all the cards.
Your lack of understanding of the whole thing clearly points out the difficulty he has...
Loving Mark Steel's piece in the Independent.
It gets worse and worse for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour. There’s a rumour that photos have emerged of a courgette grown on his allotment which is a similar shape to a rocket propeller used by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
He gets it out on social media because that is the platform not controlled by right wing nutters.
so why isn't he using more in this case ? I'll tell you why, because he isn't any form of a leader...
Not that I am not saying that his judgement is wrong here, although he clearly is an attention whore* and goes to these events because he is well received by them.
*confirmed by comments from his assistent at the end of that documentary on him which might have on the BBC.
although he clearly is an attention whore*
what do they say about politics, Show business for ugly people? I don't know one politician who isn't in partly because they love the attention.
I think personally the problem Corbyn has is that he's a 19th C politician trapped in the 21st century. He did a speaking tour of the UK last election, and people flocked to hear him, they were stood in the river here at Hebden, and TBH he was great, spoke elegantly, and passionately (something May seems incapable of) but his TV and social media seems to be a disaster, (look at the Virgin Trains fallout) so I think his team have just resorted to say as little as possible, which in todays soundbite driven 24 media just makes you look behind the game all the time.
Both major parties are doing a mighty fine job of making themselves un-electable. That said 80% of people vote the same way their parents voted or how they have always voted regardless of the leader or their policies. Just like Trump if you like him you will defend him to the hilt and if you hate him you will do everything to run him down......
wonder what Bojo will come up with to get the attention back on him?
People seem to forget how little we heard from Labour before the election. After the election was called and when the media had to give parity we suddenly heard plenty from them, people liked it and they didn't get wiped out as predicted.
I'm no huge fan of Corbyn but maybe, just maybe the same's happening now? If not please explain why it's not.
Patrick Stewart is pretty much on the money for me:
His Brexit stance is making it bloody hard for me to support the Labour Party anymore and that frankly makes me feel sick.
His Brexit stance is making it bloody hard for me to support the Labour Party anymore and that frankly makes me feel sick.
I am not a fan of his Brexit stance but it doesn't make much difference for me as he is not in a position where whatever his stance was would make any difference. Brexit is also not party political and a no win situation for any party.
he was great, spoke elegantly, and passionately
Didn't impress many at this event it seems :
"I've always felt Corbyn is maligned by the mainstream media, so I went to this to hear him speak in a non-confrontational setting. What I learned is that is is flat, uninspiring, repetitive, dreary, inarticulate and vague. Bitterly disappointing and enraging"."
"I honestly don't know why so much effort and ingenuity has gone into smearing him, when the best way to make the guy look bad is just to hand him a microphone."
twitter follow up :
https://twitter.com/will_sutcliffe8?lang=en
his Brexit stance
fools lots of people though - see the above from William Sutcliffe :
"He claimed to be anti-Brexit, but I got the feeling he would have said the opposite if the event had been in Sunderland".
Didn’t impress many at this event it seems :
A poor review in the Standard? I don't think that tells us anything one way or the other.
Patrick Stewart
If he's campaigned for Labouf for 70 years then he *must* have campaigned to leave the EU the last time that was Labour Party policy. (Which totally coincidently was the last time the left took over.)
A poor review in the Standard? I don’t think that tells us anything one way or the other.
it wasn't editorial comment from that paper though, was it - it was quotes from an attendee of the talk plus other attendees comments on his twitter feed.
it wasn’t editorial comment from that paper though, was it – it was quotes from an attendee of the talk plus other attendees comments on his twitter feed.
Which tells us - if the quote is accurate - that one person in the audience didn't like it. As I said, the article doesn't tell us anything one way, and in view of its editor, I'd be inclined to take it with a pinch of salt.
<p>Apparently all jews are zionists. Who knew?</p><p></p><p> http://www.****/news/article-6092435/Labour-MP-Luciana-Berger-hits-Jeremy-Corbyn.html</p>
Also from the video of the speech [1] it's seems he was talking about two specific Zionists, not Zionists in general. So really a non-story. Plus what he went on to say wasn't especially extreme, just waffling on about history a bit. (Which I approve of!)
Mind you, the people he was sharing the stage with aren't very helpful to his public image.
[1] Always worth seeing the whole quote in context.
[1] Always worth seeing the whole quote in context.
Yeah or just clock it's in the mail and file in the bin
This is the same Luciana Berger who criticised Corbyn for opening a talk by Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer and then leaving 5 minutes later, but is strangely silent concerning her colleague Louise Ellman attending the whole event?
That would be the one, yes.
I was more considering this bit though:
</p>
<p class="mol-para-with-font"> '[British Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'</p>
<p class="mol-para-with-font">He added: 'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
</p>Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said: 'This shows the reality of what Jeremy Corbyn thinks of Jews, somehow a breed apart from 'normal' English people.'
<p class="mol-para-with-font">Pollard added that he believed the Labour leader 'used the word 'Zionist' obviously to mean 'Jews'.'
I wonder, if I or more importantly Corbyn were to say all jews are zionists would that make us anti-semites?
Pollard added that he believed the Labour leader ‘used the word ‘Zionist’ obviously to mean ‘Jews’.’
Of course. And when he says "cabbage" obviously he means "runner bean".
Somebody seems to be conflating Jews with Zionists. And it ain't Corbyn.
As David Duke is full of praise for Team Corbyn:
Good one there Cranberry, nothing really happening, no news going on but your still banging them in there. Got nothing better to do or is your social media feed full of anti corbyn shite?
According to Peston it appears that Jeremy is set to accept IHRA.
"But there is a but. There may be addendums, put into the rulebook, which weaken the force of the IHRA examples”
Peston goes on to say that "What is striking is that Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum and the activist who used to be seen as the most ardent of Corbynistas, is said to be fighting to prevent the least possible dilution of the IHRA examples.
So what will the right wingers have to move onto or will they just dissect every historic statement made?
.
It doesn't actually require much for the Blairite wing to get up a head of steam of outrage, witness the latest lamentings of Emily Benn
@ Drj - What has Emily lamented?
@ Drj – What has Emily lamented?
enough to make her father turn in his grave...
An ex Rabbi now wades into the anti semitism row.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45333268
Rather strong words from Jonathan Sacks, although some of his views on other subjects has been questionable.
Well hi did do that this morning, isn't this on the same stuff we already covered?
Also from the video of the speech [1] it’s seems he was talking about two specific Zionists, not Zionists in general. So really a non-story. Plus what he went on to say wasn’t especially extreme, just waffling on about history a bit. (Which I approve of!)
From another poster on the last page, do you think the person reacting saw it all or just figured he could react and assume nobody would bother to look?
Who has been setting the reminders and prodding these people into action and nice intervals?
Also from the video of the speech [1] it’s seems he was talking about two specific Zionists, not Zionists in general. So really a non-story. Plus what he went on to say wasn’t especially extreme, just waffling on about history a bit. (Which I approve of!)
I wrote that but I've changed my mind this morning, I was focussing on the wrong words.
I should have focussed on: "having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony".
Sacks is right when he says:
"it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien."
It would be racist (and bloody rude) to say to a (for instance) person of ****stani origin "You've been here all your life and you still don't get Britain.". It would be clearly saying "You're different to 'us'."
So is not quite up there with "Rivers of blood", but Corbyn's words are racist and are beyond what's acceptable in a liberal society.
Breaking news.
Jezza doesn’t like certain people
The New Statesman in a RW propgananda machine ironically sponsored by Russians
Neither earth shattering although the second is a bit of a revelation
The NS has moved rightwards quite considerably, many of its writers if not most are of the anti-Corbyn persuasion for political or cultural reasons.
I never thought I'd find myself defending the beardy messiah, but to compare Corbyns comments with the Enoch Powell 'Rivers of Blood' speech is absolutely ludicrous! In fact, it's actually embarrassing, not to mention counterproductive, for someone like Johnathan Sacks, who should know better, to be making such patently ridiculous remarks.
I don't think Corbyn is personally antisemitic. But i do think that a lot of people now in the labour party, who are staunch Corbyn Supporters are. And Jezza is simply doing what he always does... endless procrastination and indecision and is happy to let things slide and turn a blind eye when its a certain group of allies and supporters who are doing and saying stuff.
It's just indicative of his 'leadership qualities' generally
Not common sense ones?
this bias is getting quite severe isn’t it if we can’t even trust the NS. What’s the world coming to?
I think you'll find the term 'common sense' is generally used to mean 'what I think'. Why would you 'trust' any journal unless it's peer reviewed, journals' positions move around all the time and the world has always been like that.
I think we can write many jews & certainly any zionists off as labour voters at the next election
however aggregate polls show that Labour's support has not been effected recently
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1031815668889411584
however aggregate polls show that Labour’s support has not been effected recently
Probably because the average voter doesn't care about internal anti-semitism issues. As for the jewish voter, there are not that many of them and of that not many most are Tory so not really much to lose there.
The media can bang on about it all day but it clearly isn't working. The longer they stick with it the more bored people will get of it so let them carry on for a few more years. Maybe they are running low on BS to spread
Sacks is right when he says:
“it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”
Cobblers. JC was making a comparison between the Palestinian ambassadors command of idiom, irony, whatever, and the apparent lack of understanding on the part of the Zionist listeners.
It seems to be a common tactic to berate someone for saying something which they haven't actually said (eg pretending someone criticised Jews in general when they actually criticised Israel killing children). That's a jolly fine debating tactic, but it does leave you open to the charge that your understanding of the language is defective.
Sacks is right when he says:
“it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”
Irony alert! Israel has recently passed a law saying that only its Jews have the right to determination. We used to call that apartheid.
Irony alert! Israel has recently passed a law saying that only its Jews have the right to determination. We used to call that apartheid.
Maybe they think that it's better that way because “having lived in the country for a very long time, probably all their lives, some non-Jews don’t understand Israel properly”.
See why it's an unacceptable thing to say in a liberal democracy?
When you foster a them-us attitude bad things can happen.
Lucky nobody actually said that, then.
Does “Pro brexit, anti Semitic” fit on a bus? Then after 1 April 2019 (according to some) there could be an alternative mid/centre engine version with “Anti Brexit, pro Semitic” on the side.
When you foster a them-us attitude bad things can happen.
Quite so, which is why we should focus on real rather than manufactured discrimination.
Quite so, which is why we should focus on real rather than manufactured discrimination.
I'm not saying we should focus on it. Merely that it wasn't acceptable. If you've lived in the UK all your life you're one of us. To pretend some individuals are still outsiders who don't quite get "us" is wrong. It's the language of them and us. Would you say that about someone who's Dad came from ****stan?
So yup, as racism goes it's not exactly hanging someone because they're black, but it *is* racism and he shouldn't have said it.
Lucky nobody actually said that, then.
He did, you just keep removing the words when you quote: “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony”
It's pretty clear he was talking about a couple of individuals who didn't originate from the UK.
It’s pretty clear he was talking about a couple of individuals who didn’t originate from the UK.
And being about 2 individuals not a group or population he could be quite right to point out of they seem to be missing or misunderstanding what other people are saying. Especially if people are deliberately misunderstanding things. Of course nobody would be doing that would they.
When you foster a them-us attitude bad things can happen.
Quite so, which is why we should focus on real rather than manufactured discrimination.
Manufactured discrimination?
So are these Labour Party comments by Jeremy are what then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45077647
https://www.channel4.com/news/labours-anti-semitism-row-jeremy-corbyn-apology
And being about 2 individuals not a group or population he could be quite right to point out of they seem to be missing or misunderstanding what other people are saying.
Yes, quite right to point out a misunderstanding. It was only racist because he brought their foreign heritage into it. Specifically by framing it in "them-us" terms:
“having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony”
So are these Labour Party comments by Jeremy are what then?
What do you think they are? I think that some people are anti-semites, and some of those people are in the Labour party: it's right that the leadership is attempting to do something about it. But it's disappointing that so many allow themselves to be played by the racist state of Israel, and friends of the Islamophobic conservative party.
“having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony”
Ao saying "I'm amazed those ****s don't get irony" would have been more polite?
Honestly I think you are stretching this one a little too far, considering what is deemed acceptable as speach about almost any other religion in the world.
He did, you just keep removing the words when you quote:
Yep, just like you snip the context about the speech given by a non-native English speaker, and Corbyn observing the contrast.
He didn't say "Zionists are such a such", still less "Jews are such and such". He made a pointed remark about some individuals which the usual suspects inside and outside the Labour Party are now using as an excuse to criticise
@ Ransos - The links are showing Labour trying to address and apologise anti semitism in the Party (this is not "manufactured" surely?). However, this has allowed sections of the RW press to seize upon the words and images and use it against the Labour Party.
Can Labour can't call itself the anti racist party if it isn't seen to be dealing with allegations of anti semitism within its own members? It seems that some people on here are saying Labour can't be questioned on anti-semitism and anyone that does might be in a position of allowing "themselves to be played by the racist state of Israel, and friends of the Islamophobic conservative party". Do you think anti-semitism within Labour should be ignored because other organisations are racist?
Do you think anti-semitism within Labour should be ignored because other organisations are racist?
Not at all but the outrage, media coverage and level of cherry picking of out of context lines is beyond a joke here. It's part of a well organised anti labour campaign which is sucking people in.
...and seems to have a high degree of momentum too
it’s right that the leadership is attempting to do something about it.
Even in the case of Ken Livingstone? His comments weren't remotely racist.
considering what is deemed acceptable as speach about almost any other religion in the world.
It's not acceptable regardless of religion. Would you say to couple of guys who moved here from ****stan that “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony”?
No, you wouldn't regardless of their religion.
He made a pointed remark about some individuals
Yes, he did, a remark based on their non-English heritage. We have no idea what country they or their parents originated from or what religion they were. If you're going to have a pop at someone based on their non-English ancestry you can't excuse it by saying "Oh there were only two or three of them.".
I said
it’s right that the leadership is attempting to do something about it.
You said in response
Do you think anti-semitism within Labour should be ignored because other organisations are racist?
Do you have any other questions I've already answered?
Quite so, which is why we should focus on real rather than manufactured discrimination.
So you understand the allegations of anti semitism aren't "manufactured" then?
So you understand the allegations of anti semitism aren’t “manufactured” then?
Some may not be, the constant raking through and isolating single sentences etc Corbyn are manufactured.
I'd like to see them dealt with, in proportion and without constant commentary.
Yes, he did, a remark based on their non-English heritage
Not at all. A remark based on their poor understanding - real or feigned - of the English language.
And let's not forget who Sacks is -
He's the one who led a march through Palestinian east Jerusalem which Haaretz described as “a gender-segregated, extreme-right, pro-occupation religious carnival of hatred” in which participants chant “Death to the Arabs” and “Al Aqsa will be burned down.”
So I don't think we need to be too concerned with his moral judgement.
So I don’t think we need to be too concerned with his moral judgement.
But that should at least feature in the BBC article shouldn't it. This is where its getting well out of hand.