Guest MattP Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 1 hour ago, breadandcheese said: I know you didn't imply this with your comment but the Labour party has a serious problem. Look at the process for a start. They've decided to unilaterally define anti-semitism on behalf of the Jewish community in this country (possibly for Jews all around the world), without consulting them or canvassing opinion. Then, looking at their definition of anti-semitism, it omits examples from the IHRA definition allowing labour party members to question Jewish people's loyalty as long as the person questioning did not have anti-semitic intent. So in the modern day Labour party, it is deemed acceptable to question a Jew's loyalty to their home country based on nothing more than their religion but as long as you didn't mean it, it's ok. As this definition is part of Labour's internal policies, it then institutionalises it as not anti-semitic. There are Jews in the Labour Party mate. Jon Lansman is on the NEC and approved the guidelines. Many left Jewish groups back the clarifications. Labour should be listening to leftists first and the (disgraced for corruption) Jewish Leadership Council and the (unelected, undemocratic) Jewish Labour Movement last. on that particular clause the IHRA definition you have omitted “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations” such an accusation would only be antisemitic if motivated by hatred of Jews according to the IHRAs own definition “Antisemitism is a particular attitude towards Jews, which is expressed as hatred toward Jews”. It requires the clarifications Labour have issued to make the definition legally arguable since the wording of the definition lacks clarity. 1 hour ago, breadandcheese said: The fact that Corbyn has ignored the views of the mainstream Jewish community No such thing. In fact to express that the most Jews are supportive of the clauses around Israel in the IHRA definition is antisemitic since it infers that you are accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to there own country. Sorry I don’t make the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 No name calling please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: No name calling please. Delete @The Doctor s fake news please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 8 minutes ago, Webbo said: No name calling please. I'm assuming that given I've got a quote from Sharpe's I can't see, it was directed at me? Kinda interested what was said now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 Just now, The Doctor said: I'm assuming that given I've got a quote from Sharpe's I can't see, it was directed at me? Kinda interested what was said now Not the worst but it's a euphemism for something else. You have to draw the line somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: There are Jews in the Labour Party mate. Jon Lansman is on the NEC and approved the guidelines. Many left Jewish groups back the clarifications. Labour should be listening to leftists first and the (disgraced for corruption) Jewish Leadership Council and the (unelected, undemocratic) Jewish Labour Movement last. on that particular clause the IHRA definition you have omitted “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations” such an accusation would only be antisemitic if motivated by hatred of Jews according to the IHRAs own definition “Antisemitism is a particular attitude towards Jews, which is expressed as hatred toward Jews”. It requires the clarifications Labour have issued to make the definition legally arguable since the wording of the definition lacks clarity. So the bulk of your argument is that the Corbynista's get to choose who are the good Jews to consult with before deciding their own definition. And that's representative of the majority UK Jewish community, how? The clarifications that Labour have issued allow much wriggle room allowing the accusation of dual loyalty to be permitted. What this then does is allow it to become normalised and grow. That is why Labour's approach has been so criticised, even by Jewish groups opposed to the occupation. Ironically, Corbyn supporters on this are almost a carbon copy of Trump supporters, refusing to countenance any criticism blaming it on right wingers, Blairites, Zionists, etc. 4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: No such thing. In fact to express that the most Jews are supportive of the clauses around Israel in the IHRA definition is antisemitic since it infers that you are accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to there own country. Sorry I don’t make the rules. That's just bullsh*t and a complete misunderstanding of the definitions. It's not even worthy of a response. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 2 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: So the bulk of your argument is that the Corbynista's get to choose who are the good Jews to consult with before deciding their own definition. And that's representative of the majority UK Jewish community, how? Other way round mate. Jewish leftists get to decide if they want to join the party and contribute to its policy making. Labour is a democratic body accountable to its members and not to the JLC which isn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 Home Office suspends cooperation over US death penalty threat for Isis pair Temporary concession comes after mother’s legal challenge seeking to quash Sajid Javid’s decision The Home Office has bowed to pressure over two British-raised jihadis facing the possibility of execution in the US by temporarily suspending cooperation with the American authorities over the case, lawyers have said. Although it is only a temporary concession, it marks the first breach in the UK government position. The Home Office could be forced to extend the suspension pending the outcome of a judicial review. The move came after the mother of one of the two, El Shafee Elsheikh, launched an emergency legal challenge seeking to quash Sajid Javid’s decision to provide evidence that would be used at trial without the usual assurance that they would not face the death penalty. The home secretary’s decision risked undermining the UK’s opposition to the death penalty. Writing in the Guardian, Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, said: “At about midday today, the government beat a tactical retreat – and caved in under the legal and political pressure.” Alexander Kotey and Elsheikh, who were brought up in Britain but had their passports revoked, are accused of being part of the Isis cell labelled “the Beatles” by hostages and are suspected of involvement in multiple murders or abductions of hostages, including of the British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines and the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Gareth Peirce and Anne McMurdie, the lawyers representing the mother, issued a press statement saying a letter was sent Javid on Tuesday asking for his immediate undertaking that mutual assistance should not continue to be provided. If he failed to comply, they threatened an injunction to prevent further assistance to the US “in light of an unlawful decision by the minister, until such time as a court could determine its legality”. The lawyers said that on Wednesday government lawyers representing the home secretary “gave an undertaking that no further provision of assistance would take place. The exact time span of the undertaking was not specified in that letter. Since then it has been qualified as constituting at present only a very short term promise”. Peirce and McMurdie on Thursday set out detailed grounds why they regarded the the minister’s decision as unlawful, setting out an urgent timetable for the case to be put before the court and for an application for a full judicial review of the minister’s decision to be determined by a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Other way round mate. Jewish leftists get to decide if they want to join the party and contribute to its policy making. Labour is a democratic body accountable to its members and not to the JLC which isn’t. So just to clarify, it's the majority of the UK Jewish community for not joining the Labour party that are the problem not the other way round? Let's ignore that Labour is not a particularly welcoming environment for Jews to join anymore, unless they subscribe to fringe movements and prove their loyalty. Anything else and they'll be labeled a Blairite or Zionist. And to clarify further the democratic Labour party should not look after the minority groups within it's midsts as the majority of the NEC has outvoted their concerns and fears? So when Jewish labour party members, who have been members for decades, say that the anti-racist party they joined all those years ago is anti-semitic, your response is that Labour is a democratic body accountable to it's members. That sounds an awful lot like the party has been taken over by some people who have no concept how odious their views are. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 Household debt in UK 'worse than at any time on record' https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/26/household-debt-in-uk-worse-than-at-any-time-on-record?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 Isn't this getting all a little semantic now? Criticism of Israel's policies is not anti-Semitic, and the fact is that there are those who happily conflate the two because it helps their agenda in whatever way. The more obfuscating and convoluted the debate is (and what is going on within the Labour party certainly seems to be both as everyone has a different definition), the happier they'll be about it because then their own views and policy will never see real scrutiny. That being said, it's not entirely a strawman being built here because the past and present shows that there are interests who want to see Israel destroyed and some of them are interests who have rubbed shoulders with folks in the Labour party in the past. To be honest, IMO the whole thing is equally as stupid as the conflict that is the background to it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 13 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: So just to clarify, it's the majority of the UK Jewish community for not joining the Labour party that are the problem not the other way round? And to clarify further the democratic Labour party should not look after the minority groups within it's midsts as the majority of the NEC has outvoted their concerns and fears? If people don’t want to formulate a two state policy on Israel then don’t join. Labour aren’t accountable to screwball Thatcherite aparteid supporters like Jonathan Arkush, the leader of the UK second biggest Jewish group after Jewdas; a left wing anti Israel group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 9 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: If people don’t want to formulate a two state policy on Israel then don’t join. Labour aren’t accountable to screwball Thatcherite aparteid supporters like Jonathan Arkush, the leader of the UK second biggest Jewish group after Jewdas; a left wing anti Israel group. Huh? The definitions that Labour are debating are nothing to do with wanting a two state solution. Just parking for a moment that your argument is that a political party (which could potentially form a government for the entire country) doesn't have a duty to look after minority groups as the majority has spoken, I'd like to know what makes you think that Jewdas is the biggest UK Jewish group and that the Board of Deputies little league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 I’m not really learned enough to know much about Israel or the Jews. So tbh I DGAF, they seem pretty sensitive though if I’m being honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 33 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: Huh? The definitions that Labour are debating are nothing to do with wanting a two state solution. Just parking for a moment that your argument is that a political party (which could potentially form a government for the entire country) doesn't have a duty to look after minority groups as the majority has spoken, I'd like to know what makes you think that Jewdas is the biggest UK Jewish group and that the Board of Deputies little league? Think it does since the IHRA says if you want the state of Israel to be destroyed like I do you are an antisemite. Jewdas have more donors and affiliates mate. Not well known though but they do lots of great work to make clear differences between Israel and anti semitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Think it does since the IHRA says if you want the state of Israel to be destroyed like I do you are an antisemite. Jewdas have more donors and affiliates mate. Not well known though but they do lots of great work to make clear differences between Israel and anti semitism. Well then I think yes, you are an antisemite. You're wrong on Jewdas, they are a minority fringe group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 8 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: Well then I think yes, you are an antisemite. You're wrong on Jewdas, they are a minority fringe group. Wanting the destruction of Israel isn’t anti-semitic in the same way wanting the destruction of Yugoslavia didn’t make you anti Slav. Both are political constructs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 If you can't (/choose not to) see that opinions on Israel =/= opinions on Jews then you're a grade A virtue signalling moron whose opinion is of negligible value. That said calling for the destruction of a state is an extreme I wouldn't personally go to, I have no suggestions for how to resolve the clusterfvck over there but I wouldn't back he nuclear option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 33 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Wanting the destruction of Israel isn’t anti-semitic in the same way wanting the destruction of Yugoslavia didn’t make you anti Slav. Both are political constructs. Why do you want the destruction of this state? Does it matter what the people there want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: If you can't (/choose not to) see that opinions on Israel =/= opinions on Jews then you're a grade A virtue signalling moron whose opinion is of negligible value. If only it was that easy to determine. Sadly, it's not as there's a whole world of grey and blurry lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 5 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: If only it was that easy to determine. Sadly, it's not as there's a whole world of grey and blurry lines. Actually it is that easy, in much the same way that opinions on Saudi Arabia =/= opinions on Muslims. There may well be overlap in some cases but the notion that the 2 subjects are disparate entities is a black and white fact unless you have some agenda to push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 British food stores ridicule Brexit stockpiling plans https://www.ft.com/content/13acf2c0-90e4-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: British food stores ridicule Brexit stockpiling plans https://www.ft.com/content/13acf2c0-90e4-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421 You gotta subscribe to read that article Tod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 26 July 2018 Share Posted 26 July 2018 3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: You gotta subscribe to read that article Tod Try it through this link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts