FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Angela Raynor threatens
Angela Raynor threatens
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? " Since the report come out they been been under pressure to remove the whip from about 30 mps I think and expel anyone guilty of anti semitism. I'm not sure which group.is putting the pressure on.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear it’s following a Jewish constituent who had to leave a meeting of the Nottingham CLP on Friday as he felt unsafe. Surprised Linus hasn’t flagged this up! " Yeah saw that. A few days ago someone on the forum bravely gave an account of how she had been treated feeling no option but to step away from Labour. Seems to be a real issue.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset." Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party." What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party." So he should accommodate anti semites to bring unity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? " Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions." Why don’t you google it as per usual? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions." Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. " Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?" Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel 
You are getting worse at this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?" What do you call ‘Juicy stuff’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sources confirmed that left-wing chair Pete Firmin and vice chair Bridget Dunne have since been suspended from the party pending an investigation. One witness said: “It was a fiasco, the worst run meeting I’ve ever been to. We didn’t even know what we were voting for half the time. “It was completely insensitive and clearly showed people were not interested in listening to the general secretary and not serious about a Labour government. Total denial that Corbyn did anything wrong. “But I’m greatly relieved national party is treating inflammatory behaviour seriously. This wouldn’t have happened six months ago. People outside the cult are genuinely relieved the party is treating this seriously.”" Why were they suspended? Considering his last suspension was overruled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel
You are getting worse at this. "So you were not there and cant discusse the over ruling..but are keen to discuss the anti semitism issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel
You are getting worse at this.
So you were not there and cant discusse the over ruling..but are keen to discuss the anti semitism issue?"Yes as per the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel
You are getting worse at this.
So you were not there and cant discusse the over ruling..but are keen to discuss the anti semitism issue?"So you want to dismiss the anti semitism issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel
You are getting worse at this.
So you were not there and cant discusse the over ruling..but are keen to discuss the anti semitism issue?
Yes as per the OP. "Right I just needed to get that clear  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel
You are getting worse at this.
So you were not there and cant discusse the over ruling..but are keen to discuss the anti semitism issue?
So you want to dismiss the anti semitism issue?"Or do you not regard it as an issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And back to the OP. " Let me have a read up on it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?" By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. " Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. " That's rather the point I was making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. " Link? I've googled labour meeting and news and certain outlets seem to be running the story but I cant find any nationals unless I'm missing something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. Link? I've googled labour meeting and news and certain outlets seem to be running the story but I cant find any nationals unless I'm missing something " What you expecting to find it in the guardian? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. Link? I've googled labour meeting and news and certain outlets seem to be running the story but I cant find any nationals unless I'm missing something What you expecting to find it in the guardian? "Well as twisted as said it was in the guardian? Right..so now a national paper is on this national semitism thing..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. " So not in the guardian then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then? "Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on. But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue "Cant see anything in the indy I'm not denying its happened but all these people piling in are not exactly backing up their views with actual facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
Cant see anything in the indy
I'm not denying its happened but all these people piling in are not exactly backing up their views with actual facts "Lionel sort your Google Fu out. Just Google her name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
Cant see anything in the indy
I'm not denying its happened but all these people piling in are not exactly backing up their views with actual facts
Lionel sort your Google Fu out.
Just Google her name. "Sorry I'm just wading through all three links that have been posted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
Cant see anything in the indy
I'm not denying its happened but all these people piling in are not exactly backing up their views with actual facts
Lionel sort your Google Fu out.
Just Google her name.
Sorry
I'm just wading through all three links that have been posted."He’s a slow reader! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whoosh. " C’mon Linus, you’ve been told where to look and besides you always seem such an expert on googling those you want to deride. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. " That follows the same format that happened in Nottingham East. The Chairwoman, Ms Regan, who is a senior NUT official and stauch campaigner for Palestine, has now been suspended from the Labour Party. To her credit, the local MP, Nadia Whittome, has condemned the events of the evening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. That follows the same format that happened in Nottingham East. The Chairwoman, Ms Regan, who is a senior NUT official and stauch campaigner for Palestine, has now been suspended from the Labour Party. To her credit, the local MP, Nadia Whittome, has condemned the events of the evening. " Yes that’s the one I alluded to earlier. Obviously Linus has run for the hills rather than admit that there still is a problem in the Labour Party. There are non so blind as those that will not see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. That follows the same format that happened in Nottingham East. The Chairwoman, Ms Regan, who is a senior NUT official and stauch campaigner for Palestine, has now been suspended from the Labour Party. To her credit, the local MP, Nadia Whittome, has condemned the events of the evening. " There is a few other versions of what happened online. Can I just ask why is the bit in there about Palestine, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? " And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process?" Answer the question re the anti Semitic issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process?" Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... " Who made the decision to suspend? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend?" The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lionel do you still think it’s just a question of “2” mate? Or now maybe on balance there is a culture? " I've read 2 sides to it. The piece in the metro and the piece about what happened in Nottingham. I've also read a piece from someone who took minutes at the meeting and they do contrast somewhat. If someone has been overly anti semitic they should be thrown out the party.However even the piece in the evening standard doesnt say that.. insead focusing on the chaotic scenes at the meeting. It seems strange that the 2 incidents should happen so close together,but like I said earlier, I think the decision to block the motions has caused massive anger. I'll wait till The investigation is done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lionel do you still think it’s just a question of “2” mate? Or now maybe on balance there is a culture? I've read 2 sides to it. The piece in the metro and the piece about what happened in Nottingham. I've also read a piece from someone who took minutes at the meeting and they do contrast somewhat. If someone has been overly anti semitic they should be thrown out the party.However even the piece in the evening standard doesnt say that.. insead focusing on the chaotic scenes at the meeting. It seems strange that the 2 incidents should happen so close together,but like I said earlier, I think the decision to block the motions has caused massive anger. I'll wait till The investigation is done." Looking like a culture isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act." Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lionel do you still think it’s just a question of “2” mate? Or now maybe on balance there is a culture? I've read 2 sides to it. The piece in the metro and the piece about what happened in Nottingham. I've also read a piece from someone who took minutes at the meeting and they do contrast somewhat. If someone has been overly anti semitic they should be thrown out the party.However even the piece in the evening standard doesnt say that.. insead focusing on the chaotic scenes at the meeting. It seems strange that the 2 incidents should happen so close together,but like I said earlier, I think the decision to block the motions has caused massive anger. I'll wait till The investigation is done. Looking like a culture isn’t it? " How can it be? Surely the evil mastermind behind it all has gone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lionel do you still think it’s just a question of “2” mate? Or now maybe on balance there is a culture? I've read 2 sides to it. The piece in the metro and the piece about what happened in Nottingham. I've also read a piece from someone who took minutes at the meeting and they do contrast somewhat. If someone has been overly anti semitic they should be thrown out the party.However even the piece in the evening standard doesnt say that.. insead focusing on the chaotic scenes at the meeting. It seems strange that the 2 incidents should happen so close together,but like I said earlier, I think the decision to block the motions has caused massive anger. I'll wait till The investigation is done. Looking like a culture isn’t it? How can it be? Surely the evil mastermind behind it all has gone?" His disciples or were they masters? have not though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lionel do you still think it’s just a question of “2” mate? Or now maybe on balance there is a culture? I've read 2 sides to it. The piece in the metro and the piece about what happened in Nottingham. I've also read a piece from someone who took minutes at the meeting and they do contrast somewhat. If someone has been overly anti semitic they should be thrown out the party.However even the piece in the evening standard doesnt say that.. insead focusing on the chaotic scenes at the meeting. It seems strange that the 2 incidents should happen so close together,but like I said earlier, I think the decision to block the motions has caused massive anger. I'll wait till The investigation is done. Looking like a culture isn’t it? How can it be? Surely the evil mastermind behind it all has gone?" Contrary to the general belief on here I don’t think he was an Anti Semite. I believe his weak leadership allowed it to fester and grow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lionel do you still think it’s just a question of “2” mate? Or now maybe on balance there is a culture? I've read 2 sides to it. The piece in the metro and the piece about what happened in Nottingham. I've also read a piece from someone who took minutes at the meeting and they do contrast somewhat. If someone has been overly anti semitic they should be thrown out the party.However even the piece in the evening standard doesnt say that.. insead focusing on the chaotic scenes at the meeting. It seems strange that the 2 incidents should happen so close together,but like I said earlier, I think the decision to block the motions has caused massive anger. I'll wait till The investigation is done. Looking like a culture isn’t it? How can it be? Surely the evil mastermind behind it all has gone? Contrary to the general belief on here I don’t think he was an Anti Semite. I believe his weak leadership allowed it to fester and grow. " I partly agree. I think he was very anti Israel which also contributed. I also find it strange not 1 piece appeared in any newspaper about corbyn pre 2016. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture." Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either..." Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored?" Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..??" I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless "Proved wrong again and have no answer. How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???"You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong Genius. I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you. Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason. The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess. That should have been the end of the matter. Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks. There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There you go Linus, I’ve saved you the bother of looking for it. “One of the five people who sat on the Labour panel that decided to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn has demanded that General Secretary David Evans corrects “false information” being circulated about the high-profile case and has called for all future complaints panels to be halted. The JC understands that Gurinder Singh Josan is furious with claims that were circulated by allies of the former leader after Tuesday’s hearing which suggested there had been a unanimous verdict in favour of dropping Mr Corbyn’s suspension. As the JC has revealed, Mr Singh Josan was one of two NEC panellists who refused to support the decision to let Mr Corbyn back into the party. In a statement issued on Wednesday evening, the Sikhs 4 Labour activist revealed he had requested Mr Evans correct the record of what happened at the meeting.”" What's the jc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???
You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong
Genius.
I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you.
Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason.
The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks.
There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process."I told you the point of the 3/2 majority was a difference of opinion. Soul destroying because can’t accept you are always in the right . Yes that’ll be why... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.." Why was he suspended.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???
You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong
Genius.
I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you.
Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason.
The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks.
There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process.
I told you the point of the 3/2 majority was a difference of opinion.
Soul destroying because can’t accept you are always in the right .
Yes that’ll be why..."I'm quite frequently wrong and I'll hold my hands up. I'm presuming you missed the bit where I said above anyone found guilt of as should be thrown out of the party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???
You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong
Genius.
I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you.
Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason.
The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks.
There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process.
I told you the point of the 3/2 majority was a difference of opinion.
Soul destroying because can’t accept you are always in the right .
Yes that’ll be why...
I'm quite frequently wrong and I'll hold my hands up.
I'm presuming you missed the bit where I said above anyone found guilt of as should be thrown out of the party."No I saw that and anybody would be foolish to think otherwise... What relevance does that have on the disciplinary processes of the Labour Party.?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???
You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong
Genius.
I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you.
Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason.
The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks.
There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process.
I told you the point of the 3/2 majority was a difference of opinion.
Soul destroying because can’t accept you are always in the right .
Yes that’ll be why...
I'm quite frequently wrong and I'll hold my hands up.
I'm presuming you missed the bit where I said above anyone found guilt of as should be thrown out of the party.
No I saw that and anybody would be foolish to think otherwise...
What relevance does that have on the disciplinary processes of the Labour Party.??"Maybe you should stick to the nature of the actual thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.?" Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity." So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???
You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong
Genius.
I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you.
Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason.
The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks.
There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process.
I told you the point of the 3/2 majority was a difference of opinion.
Soul destroying because can’t accept you are always in the right .
Yes that’ll be why...
I'm quite frequently wrong and I'll hold my hands up.
I'm presuming you missed the bit where I said above anyone found guilt of as should be thrown out of the party.
No I saw that and anybody would be foolish to think otherwise...
What relevance does that have on the disciplinary processes of the Labour Party.??
Maybe you should stick to the nature of the actual thread?"What discussing suspensions and discipline and the whys and wherefores That exactly what the OP was getting at isn’t it. And you never change the subject of a thread do you......... You are quite unbelievable at times.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To suspend "thousands and thousands" of Labour Party members 1.- for what? 2.- should she? And 3.- should she be suspended herself? Just curious as to what Labour supporters think? And where exactly does this tie in with the ehrc findings that there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process? Here we go again. You quoted this mis fact the other day, were corrected and ignored it. If someone does something in an organisation that is deemed a disciplinary issue then that organisation has the right to suspend pending disciplinary proceedings. The EHRC stated there should be no political interference in the disciplinary process that follows that suspension... Who made the decision to suspend? The organisation to which they belong who think they have a disciplinary case to answer, which will be independently investigated without political interference... What don’t you understand. Just because a political party suspends someone does not make it a political act. Starmer made the decision. Starmer made the decision to suspend Corbyn which was subseqently overturned. His decision to withdraw the whip has been met with huge anger..hence the numerous motions. If you cant see the inconsistencies there,I'm not going to draw you a picture. Please do draw it What inconsistencies ..?? He was suspended from the Labour Party and the Parliamentary party. A resolution committee of 5 from the NEC reinstated him to the party 3 votes to 2. The chairmen having lied in public saying it was a unanimous decision and when threatened with legal action the truth came out.. He is still suspended from the PLP Anger there may well be but from certain quarters and utter glee from other quarters. Why does it matter who suspended them, surely the head of any organisation, firm, company who is presented with prima facea evidence of a disciplinary issue is duty bound to suspend pending the outcome of independent investigations... Pleas draw me that picture.. And if Bubo couple think this is a boring rant I don’t give two hoots either... Can you provide a link to your nec story? And even if you are right..are you suggesting a 3 2 majority should be ignored? Your the google expert find it. But you will find what I say as 100% accurate And I have never suggested that decision should be ignored, I madd the point only to highlight there are differing opinions on the matter. I will happily listen to the facts of both sides of an argument. So long as they are fact. Why wont you..?? I stopped reading at that 1st sentence Priceless
Proved wrong again and have no answer.
How can there have been political interference in a disciplinary process that has yet to start...???
You cant provide a link but I have been proved wrong
Genius.
I'll say this once as I truly cant be arsed getting into another soul destroying debate with you.
Ks suspended starmer, for no apparent good reason.
The nec,The people who were actually voted in my labour members looked at the evidence and overturned his decision.Quite what the relevance of it it only being 3-2 is anyones guess.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Ks has now withdrew his whip with many labour parties up and down the countries,voting for mortions against it,with The national party behind ks.
There is without doubt issies around the whole disciplinary process.
I told you the point of the 3/2 majority was a difference of opinion.
Soul destroying because can’t accept you are always in the right .
Yes that’ll be why...
I'm quite frequently wrong and I'll hold my hands up.
I'm presuming you missed the bit where I said above anyone found guilt of as should be thrown out of the party.
No I saw that and anybody would be foolish to think otherwise...
What relevance does that have on the disciplinary processes of the Labour Party.??
Maybe you should stick to the nature of the actual thread?
What discussing suspensions and discipline and the whys and wherefores
That exactly what the OP was getting at isn’t it.
And you never change the subject of a thread do you.........
You are quite unbelievable at times...."I do my best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. " Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..??" The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct. " 
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp" Funny how you can use google when it suits... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand..."What other reason could there be? Ks suspended him for his reaction. Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits..." Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there." What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion."So that’ll be your opinion then.. And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings.... Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.." An article in the Jewish Chronicle on jeremy Corbyn is gospel but an article in the independent backed up by evidence Is bullshit? Gotcha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us.."Well considering I'm not on the panel of course it's my opinion but if you know differently enlighten me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... I didn’t quote the Jewish chronicle. If you can’t find the source I have don’t bleat to me to produce it You fail repeatedly to provide evidence when asked but don’t like a sip of your own medicine. Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.. An article in the Jewish Chronicle on jeremy Corbyn is gospel but an article in the independent backed up by evidence Is bullshit? Gotcha." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us..
Well considering I'm not on the panel of course it's my opinion but if you know differently enlighten me."If it’s not the man in charge who usually accepts responsibility when criminal acts are committed by the organisation he runs then it’s anyone’s guess.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us.."Care to explain how he oversaw such criminal negligence yet had his suspension overthrown? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us..
Care to explain how he oversaw such criminal negligence yet had his suspension overthrown?"Did he not oversee it then..?? Was someone else in charge?? And your 100% backing for his full quote?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... I didn’t quote the Jewish chronicle. If you can’t find the source I have don’t bleat to me to produce it You fail repeatedly to provide evidence when asked but don’t like a sip of your own medicine. Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.. An article in the Jewish Chronicle on jeremy Corbyn is gospel but an article in the independent backed up by evidence Is bullshit? Gotcha." I never quoted anything from that paper, think you’ll find it was someone else.. Google away you’ll find it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us..
Care to explain how he oversaw such criminal negligence yet had his suspension overthrown?
Did he not oversee it then..?? Was someone else in charge??
And your 100% backing for his full quote??"You can dress it up anyway you like. The bottom line is a report overturned his suspension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... I didn’t quote the Jewish chronicle. If you can’t find the source I have don’t bleat to me to produce it You fail repeatedly to provide evidence when asked but don’t like a sip of your own medicine. Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.. An article in the Jewish Chronicle on jeremy Corbyn is gospel but an article in the independent backed up by evidence Is bullshit? Gotcha. I never quoted anything from that paper, think you’ll find it was someone else.. Google away you’ll find it..." No you didn't provide evidence The piece quoted came from the jewish Chronicle as no other outlet seemed to be running that story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us..
Care to explain how he oversaw such criminal negligence yet had his suspension overthrown?
Did he not oversee it then..?? Was someone else in charge??
And your 100% backing for his full quote??"And actually when the report began his investigation,corbyn wasn't in charge of the disciplinary process. I'll dig out the name tomorrow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us..
Care to explain how he oversaw such criminal negligence yet had his suspension overthrown?
Did he not oversee it then..?? Was someone else in charge??
And your 100% backing for his full quote??
And actually when the report began his investigation,corbyn wasn't in charge of the disciplinary process.
I'll dig out the name tomorrow "But he was when all the relevant offences happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No apparent good reason.... Read the report again...... Then read jezzas comments on the report and you’ll find the soul destroying answer you’ve been seeking.. Why was he suspended.? Because of his comments he made about the report and his refusal to retract when given the opportunity. So he was suspended for voicing an opinion? Why is exactly why the nec overturned the decision. Is it?? Your favourite question please evidence the findings of the NEC . And yes he was suspended for saying the issue had been exaggerated and driven by political foes from within and outside the party. If you think that acceptable then that is why you can’t accept the withdrawal of the whip. Do you think it was an acceptable response..?? The evidence Is that they overturned starmers decision. What other evidence do you need? If it wasnt acceptable the nec would have booted him out. Its funny you can unquestionably accept 1 investigation but you seem to take issue by the investigation carried out by the nec? He said anti semitism had been exaggerated in the media. He was correct.
You said he was suspended for voicing an opinion which is why the NEC overturned it.
How do you know what reasoning they used to overturn it??
And you quite clearly missed where I stated I fully accepted the 3/2 majority finding.
I think you need to check his exact Facebook quote, not the bit you like.
And if you think it’s acceptable h to our entitled to your opinion.
Is that 100% backing for his full quote, just so we know where you stand...
What other reason could there be?
Ks suspended him for his reaction.
Clearly the investigation found he did nothing wrong,or at least nothing to warrant suspension or expulsion.
So that’ll be your opinion then..
And nothing wrong other than being in charge of an organisation that committed 3 criminal offences and a multitude of other failings....
Read the report.... he was in charge.. who was as fault if it’s wasn’t Corbyn?? Please enlighten us..
Care to explain how he oversaw such criminal negligence yet had his suspension overthrown?
Did he not oversee it then..?? Was someone else in charge??
And your 100% backing for his full quote??
You can dress it up anyway you like.
The bottom line is a report overturned his suspension.
"Part of his suspension let’s wait and see re the PLP shall we... And your 100% backing for his full quote... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.. An article in the Jewish Chronicle on jeremy Corbyn is gospel but an article in the independent backed up by evidence Is bullshit? Gotcha." Are you saying that the article in the JC isn’t true because it’s Jewish? Ah, now I see where the stubborn defence of Corbyn is born. Gotcha! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html%3famp Funny how you can use google when it suits... Or maybe just when the evidence is actually there. What by using slanted journalistic articles that suit. Articles in the press doesn’t equal evidence.. An article in the Jewish Chronicle on jeremy Corbyn is gospel but an article in the independent backed up by evidence Is bullshit? Gotcha. Are you saying that the article in the JC isn’t true because it’s Jewish? Ah, now I see where the stubborn defence of Corbyn is born. Gotcha!" So, no denial them Linus? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have the racacals been thrown out of the party yet?" Nothing in the morning worker??????? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seemed to have an opinion the other day? Seems to have gone quite quiet " local labour branches have been told they cant discuss JC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seemed to have an opinion the other day? Seems to have gone quite quiet " Maybe people have made their point, have nothing more to add and moved on.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seemed to have an opinion the other day? Seems to have gone quite quiet Maybe people have made their point, have nothing more to add and moved on.. " And what was your point again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone seemed to have an opinion the other day? Seems to have gone quite quiet Maybe people have made their point, have nothing more to add and moved on.. And what was your point again?" My point was responding to your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very strange Several posters seemed very keen on the culprits being punished the other day. I wonder why they have gone strangely reticent." A culprit is someone deemed responsible for a crime.. Are they guilty then..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very strange Several posters seemed very keen on the culprits being punished the other day. I wonder why they have gone strangely reticent. A culprit is someone deemed responsible for a crime.. Are they guilty then..??" Eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very strange Several posters seemed very keen on the culprits being punished the other day. I wonder why they have gone strangely reticent. A culprit is someone deemed responsible for a crime.. Are they guilty then..?? Eh?" Read your above and you might get it... but there again maybe not... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very strange Several posters seemed very keen on the culprits being punished the other day. I wonder why they have gone strangely reticent. A culprit is someone deemed responsible for a crime.. Are they guilty then..?? Eh? Read your above and you might get it... but there again maybe not..." I'll try again Should the 2 people be thrown out of the labour party? It's a simple question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How very strange Several posters seemed very keen on the culprits being punished the other day. I wonder why they have gone strangely reticent. A culprit is someone deemed responsible for a crime.. Are they guilty then..?? Eh? Read your above and you might get it... but there again maybe not... I'll try again Should the 2 people be thrown out of the labour party? It's a simple question " I’ll try again You said “ the culprits” culprits are guilty parties.. by your terms you are saying they are guilty. I was asking you to confirm if you thought they were guilty. I have no interest in the punishment and that was never raised by me but yet again more whataboutary or answer a question with a question... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I ask a simple question Yes or no will suffice And you cannot answer I do wonder why..as you seemed quite intent on insisting labour have a problem on previous occasions " Please detail where I have ever mentioned any problem on any issue in the Labour Party. All I have ever done is question or remark on your statements. And as I was first to ask a question which has still not been answered, I will wait for you to answer first, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.." Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.. Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... I thought the reason why I couldnt reply was fairly obvious even to someone like you. As for that clamour I did respond and unlike most of the hypicroctes on here,I slammed the leader. Unsurprisingly there were very few replies. Quite why all that is relevant to this thread is anyones guess but yourself." So who are you going to support at the next election? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.. Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... " I thought the reason why I couldnt respond was fairly obvious even to someone like you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.. Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... I thought the reason why I couldnt reply was fairly obvious even to someone like you. As for that clamour I did respond and unlike most of the hypicroctes on here,I slammed the leader. Unsurprisingly there were very few replies. Quite why all that is relevant to this thread is anyones guess but yourself. So who are you going to support at the next election? " Should they be expelled from the party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.. Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... " Quite what the liverpool thread has got to do with this is anyones guess. However I did respond to the 'clamour 'and unsurprisingly there were not too many replies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.. Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... I thought the reason why I couldnt reply was fairly obvious even to someone like you. As for that clamour I did respond and unlike most of the hypicroctes on here,I slammed the leader. Unsurprisingly there were very few replies. Quite why all that is relevant to this thread is anyones guess but yourself. So who are you going to support at the next election? Should they be expelled from the party?" Who? Starmer and Raynor? Yes. And anyone who supports Corbyn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Walks away whistling.. Right let’s look at the facts here... we were in an exchange of views on this thread 5 days ago. I asked you a question about half a dozen times which you failed to answer. I’ll ask again do you give 100 % backing to Corbyn statement about the ECHR report. You then disappeared from this thread for 3 days.. You disappeared from the forums for over 24 hours although online, failing to respond to the clamour for your opinions re the mayor of Liverpool... You reappear yesterday on this thread calling people out for their silence I responded with a possible reason for you. After a short exchange you again failed to answer a question put answering as usual with another question. You then left the thread ( I waited for over an hour for a reply) You reappear with your comments as though it was me who owes you a reply or answer.. Whilst this may be your sad existence. I come on and off for amusement and have a full life where I spend most of my time. Unlike yourself who seem to think this is the real world... Not tapping fingers or whistling waiting for a reply to the facts.... I thought the reason why I couldnt reply was fairly obvious even to someone like you. As for that clamour I did respond and unlike most of the hypicroctes on here,I slammed the leader. Unsurprisingly there were very few replies. Quite why all that is relevant to this thread is anyones guess but yourself. So who are you going to support at the next election? Should they be expelled from the party? Who? Starmer and Raynor? Yes. And anyone who supports Corbyn " Right. So the 2 members who were suspended The other day(the ones who suggested were anti semites) Should be expelled? And anyone who supports corbyn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings?" How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? " Should the 2 members have been suspended? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended?" why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again. "Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?) What's changed? As for your question..I've answered it several times before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before."There was a culture it was mentioned in the report. Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day? I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated. "So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled? Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset." Seems the jeiwish issue has not gone away? Indeed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated.
So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled?
Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder?"I don’t know enough about it which is why I can’t answer the question. Which is why I never called for them to be expelled. You were simply misquoting again. Which is somethng you often do. What’s important is Labour have recognised there is a problem/culture and they now seem to be getting their house in order.
Good times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended?" Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated.
So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled?
Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder?
I don’t know enough about it which is why I can’t answer the question.
Which is why I never called for them to be expelled. You were simply misquoting again. Which is somethng you often do.
What’s important is Labour have recognised there is a problem/culture and they now seem to be getting their house in order.
Good times. "
So no answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated.
So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled?
Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder?
I don’t know enough about it which is why I can’t answer the question.
Which is why I never called for them to be expelled. You were simply misquoting again. Which is somethng you often do.
What’s important is Labour have recognised there is a problem/culture and they now seem to be getting their house in order.
Good times.
So no answer."Um my answer is I don’t know enough about it. As mentioned above. Is that not enough for you Are you being deliberately obtuse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated.
So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled?
Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder?
I don’t know enough about it which is why I can’t answer the question.
Which is why I never called for them to be expelled. You were simply misquoting again. Which is somethng you often do.
What’s important is Labour have recognised there is a problem/culture and they now seem to be getting their house in order.
Good times.
So no answer.
Um my answer is I don’t know enough about it. As mentioned above. Is that not enough for you
Are you being deliberately obtuse? "Oh come on be honest You domt know enough about it? Funny you seemed to know quite a bit about it the other day? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated.
So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled?
Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder?
I don’t know enough about it which is why I can’t answer the question.
Which is why I never called for them to be expelled. You were simply misquoting again. Which is somethng you often do.
What’s important is Labour have recognised there is a problem/culture and they now seem to be getting their house in order.
Good times.
So no answer.
Um my answer is I don’t know enough about it. As mentioned above. Is that not enough for you
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Oh come on be honest
You domt know enough about it?
Funny you seemed to know quite a bit about it the other day?"On the report yes because I read it. On the mythical things you misquote not so much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. " You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? why you asking me a quiestion? I asked you a question about the Corbyn statement a veritable swerve again.
Because I've asked the question 3 times now and I'm still waiting for a response
You seemed quite keen on them getting turfed the other day(looking like a culture?)
What's changed?
As for your question..I've answered it several times before.
There was a culture it was mentioned in the report.
Where did I mention them getting them turfed the other day?
I think I’m with Kier on this issue about those who think it’s exgerrated.
So should those 2 people who were suspended from the meeting be expelled?
Why is it so hard to get an answer I wonder?
I don’t know enough about it which is why I can’t answer the question.
Which is why I never called for them to be expelled. You were simply misquoting again. Which is somethng you often do.
What’s important is Labour have recognised there is a problem/culture and they now seem to be getting their house in order.
Good times.
So no answer.
Um my answer is I don’t know enough about it. As mentioned above. Is that not enough for you
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Oh come on be honest
You domt know enough about it?
Funny you seemed to know quite a bit about it the other day?
On the report yes because I read it. On the mythical things you misquote not so much. "I often disagree with you but I respect your views and you are not like some of the others on here. But you are letting yourself down here. You clearly thought the 2 suspensions were related to the issue of anti semtism. What has changed.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I " Thank you. You have proved my point conclusively | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about?" Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? " I don’t offer comment on stuff I don’t really know little about. Hence me bombarding you with questions some of the time see the Liverpool thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I Thank you. You have proved my point conclusively " What point would that be..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? " So despite it being a specific thread about the 2 suspensions. You were specifically not referring to them.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I Thank you. You have proved my point conclusively What point would that be..?? " Go and bother someone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? So despite it being a specific thread about the 2 suspensions. You were specifically not referring to them.? " Nope just the worrying culture in the party. Hence me not mentioning expulsion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? So despite it being a specific thread about the 2 suspensions. You were specifically not referring to them.? Nope just the worrying culture in the party. Hence me not mentioning expulsion. "
Right.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I Thank you. You have proved my point conclusively What point would that be..?? Go and bother someone else." Your point...??? As I said you can always scroll on by.... People who actually stand up to you... can’t you cope with it can you. go for a lay down.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue "So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue ' When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I Thank you. You have proved my point conclusively What point would that be..?? Go and bother someone else. Your point...??? As I said you can always scroll on by.... People who actually stand up to you... can’t you cope with it can you. go for a lay down...." Stand upto me? It's an internet forum not some east end ale house. Please domt reference my posts any more and I'll do the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?"No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you. Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And now it seems questions are being asked about islamaphobia going of what Owen Jones is saying. Worrying times if the Labour Party is having those problems as well. Traditionally I always saw that as a Tory issue. " Have they suspended another 2 people for shouting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And now it seems questions are being asked about islamaphobia going of what Owen Jones is saying. Worrying times if the Labour Party is having those problems as well. Traditionally I always saw that as a Tory issue. Have they suspended another 2 people for shouting?" No check his Twitter out it’s an interesting read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? So despite it being a specific thread about the 2 suspensions. You were specifically not referring to them.? " It’s actually not a specific thread about the two suspensions, go read the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again "Micropoints? The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story. No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem. For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story. So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The corbyn statement was I'll advised but he was correct on saying the issue of anti semitism has been exaggerated by people outside the party. I have said this many times in the past and provided examples. You realise he also issued a 2md statement where he fully accepted the findings? How do you qualify that he was correct on it being exaggerated? Should the 2 members have been suspended? Your myopic drivel knows no bounds... I think you are confusing 3 or 4 people’s posts on here as being one person, maybe draw breath and read who’s sending then respond. And if I bore you so much why do I always get a response..?? Scroll on by..... And if I Thank you. You have proved my point conclusively What point would that be..?? Go and bother someone else. Your point...??? As I said you can always scroll on by.... People who actually stand up to you... can’t you cope with it can you. go for a lay down.... Stand upto me? It's an internet forum not some east end ale house. Please domt reference my posts any more and I'll do the same." I’ll reference who and what I chose to. To challenging for you is it..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? So despite it being a specific thread about the 2 suspensions. You were specifically not referring to them.? It’s actually not a specific thread about the two suspensions, go read the OP." That's funny. You brought it up in the 3rd post? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
"Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for? (I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
Cant see anything in the indy
I'm not denying its happened but all these people piling in are not exactly backing up their views with actual facts
Lionel sort your Google Fu out.
Just Google her name.
Sorry
I'm just wading through all three links that have been posted.
He’s a slow reader!"Its not about the suspensions apparently | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right?By their own party by the look of it what a total fuck up the labour party is. The motion, put forward by a local union branch, called on leader Sir Keir to restore the whip to Mr Corbyn “immediately” and demanded all members who had been suspended for refusing to accept requests not to discus his suspension to be reinstated. It comes after Labour’s general secretary David Evans told local Labour parties that any such motions “will be ruled out of order”. Sounds like they are at least trying to get their house in order and stamp out the cult of anti semitism. I think any reasonable person would think this was a good thing. You posted this on response to the 2 people getting suspended 'Stamp out the cult of anti semtism ' Presumably you are referring to the 2 people suspended as that is what the entire thread is about? Never presume. I was talking about the report and the culture of anti semitism that is rife. It should be stamped out don’t you agree? So despite it being a specific thread about the 2 suspensions. You were specifically not referring to them.? It’s actually not a specific thread about the two suspensions, go read the OP. That's funny. You brought it up in the 3rd post? " No I didn’t. Try reading that post again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for?
(I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes) "What were they suspended for? I'm fairly sure I asked that question myself very early in on The thread and was pointed in direction of the various media outlets which ran the story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear it’s following a Jewish constituent who had to leave a meeting of the Nottingham CLP on Friday as he felt unsafe. Surprised Linus hasn’t flagged this up! " No you are correct You just mentioned another meeting where someone was suspended | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems the jewish question has not gone away. L abour has suspended two senior officials of a local party after a motion was passed to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour MP, the Standard can reveal. Hampstead and Kilburn CLP defied orders from Labour HQ to pass a motion calling on Sir Keir Starmer to restore the whip to his predecessor during a “chaotic” Zoom meeting last Thursday evening. Witnesses on the call, which included around 100 people, said the meeting felt “overtly hostile” and left Jewish members feeling upset. Nice to see keir doing his bit to bring unity to the party. What do you think of the anti semitism issue in the Labour Party? Can I actually have some information on what actually happened at the meeting before throwing accusations about? And can I ask a question? Why are the local party prohibited from passing motions. Perhaps direct those questions at Kier. Not sure he has a profile on here though. Pop yourself along to the Guardian and the Independent and read the article. Nice swerve So just to.be clear. We are ignoring the fact that local members of a political party are being denied to chance to pass a motion and focusing instead on the juicey stuff? Have I got that right? Not really a swerve as I can’t answer the question because I wasn’t there Lionel
You are getting worse at this.
So you were not there and cant discusse the over ruling..but are keen to discuss the anti semitism issue?
So you want to dismiss the anti semitism issue?"Though here. When we were specifically talking about the suspensions..you asked do I want to dismiss the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whoosh. C’mon Linus, you’ve been told where to look and besides you always seem such an expert on googling those you want to deride. " You also seem quite intent on me doing some research on tur meeting here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for?
(I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes)
What were they suspended for?
I'm fairly sure I asked that question myself very early in on The thread and was pointed in direction of the various media outlets which ran the story."Touché. Just reading the update. The member does seem to say some inflammatory things and it seems she made the atmosphere deeply hostile. Almost like she is trying to steer the narrative on the issue John Mccdonnell has offered advocate on her behalf. What a messy party at the moment. Kiers got his work cut out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for?
(I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes)
What were they suspended for?
I'm fairly sure I asked that question myself very early in on The thread and was pointed in direction of the various media outlets which ran the story.
Touché.
Just reading the update. The member does seem to say some inflammatory things and it seems she made the atmosphere deeply hostile. Almost like she is trying to steer the narrative on the issue
John Mccdonnell has offered advocate on her behalf.
What a messy party at the moment. Kiers got his work cut out. "But the implication on here was that they were using anti semitic language (the reference to Jewish members feeling threatened) When I did Google the story..it seemed to be the only outlets ,apart from the metro,were Jewish publications..why?Because certain people want to make every issue about anti semtism Which goes back to corbyns exaggerated point. He has and his treatment of Corbyn.and his supporters (like the 2 who were suspended)is making the issue 10 times worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for?
(I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes)
What were they suspended for?
I'm fairly sure I asked that question myself very early in on The thread and was pointed in direction of the various media outlets which ran the story.
Touché.
Just reading the update. The member does seem to say some inflammatory things and it seems she made the atmosphere deeply hostile. Almost like she is trying to steer the narrative on the issue
John Mccdonnell has offered advocate on her behalf.
What a messy party at the moment. Kiers got his work cut out.
But the implication on here was that they were using anti semitic language (the reference to Jewish members feeling threatened)
When I did Google the story..it seemed to be the only outlets ,apart from the metro,were Jewish publications..why?Because certain people want to make every issue about anti semtism
Which goes back to corbyns exaggerated point.
He has and his treatment of Corbyn.and his supporters (like the 2 who were suspended)is making the issue 10 times worse.
"It’s seem Jewish Members did feel threatened as reported in the Labourlist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for?
(I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes)
What were they suspended for?
I'm fairly sure I asked that question myself very early in on The thread and was pointed in direction of the various media outlets which ran the story.
Touché.
Just reading the update. The member does seem to say some inflammatory things and it seems she made the atmosphere deeply hostile. Almost like she is trying to steer the narrative on the issue
John Mccdonnell has offered advocate on her behalf.
What a messy party at the moment. Kiers got his work cut out.
But the implication on here was that they were using anti semitic language (the reference to Jewish members feeling threatened)
When I did Google the story..it seemed to be the only outlets ,apart from the metro,were Jewish publications..why?Because certain people want to make every issue about anti semtism
Which goes back to corbyns exaggerated point.
He has and his treatment of Corbyn.and his supporters (like the 2 who were suspended)is making the issue 10 times worse.
It’s seem Jewish Members did feel threatened as reported in the Labourlist. "Wasnt it a zoom meeting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get yourself over to the Labourlist for the lowdown Lionel. So not in the guardian then?
Yeah sorry my bad it was the Independent and Evening Standard. Trying to multitask here with the football on.
But the Labourlist has a good read on the issue
So despite you saying 'have a good read on the issue '
When I asked for the link on the meetings..you were specically not talking about the suspensions?
No which is why I didn’t mention the expulsions/suspensions specifically. You asked for some links and I found them for you.
Good to see you trying to score micro victories by desperately misquoting again
Micropoints?
The entire thread is about the suspensions. Hence the quotes in the few papers which printed the story.
No matter how much you deny it..The implication is clear..the 2 members who were suspended at the meeting were part of the problem.
For anyone unclear on why there is huge backtracking on this issue, its because 1 of those suspended is actually Jewish.A point somehow missed by the outlets which printed the initial story.
So those on here making a big deal about the suspensions are looking a tad foolish.
Now that’s taken an interesting turn. What were they specifically sxpellled for?
(I still don’t know hence no comment on it no matter how you try and twist my quotes)
What were they suspended for?
I'm fairly sure I asked that question myself very early in on The thread and was pointed in direction of the various media outlets which ran the story.
Touché.
Just reading the update. The member does seem to say some inflammatory things and it seems she made the atmosphere deeply hostile. Almost like she is trying to steer the narrative on the issue
John Mccdonnell has offered advocate on her behalf.
What a messy party at the moment. Kiers got his work cut out.
But the implication on here was that they were using anti semitic language (the reference to Jewish members feeling threatened)
When I did Google the story..it seemed to be the only outlets ,apart from the metro,were Jewish publications..why?Because certain people want to make every issue about anti semtism
Which goes back to corbyns exaggerated point.
He has and his treatment of Corbyn.and his supporters (like the 2 who were suspended)is making the issue 10 times worse.
It’s seem Jewish Members did feel threatened as reported in the Labourlist.
Wasnt it a zoom meeting?"We live in a digital age where all sorts can happen. I’m not one for getting offended over the internet but some people can be. As Fab demonstrates.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
