Sheaf Saint

I obviously don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you wouldn't have a parasitic agent who stands to make £millions out of any deal negotiating on your behalf in such a situation.

I don't think Nordic was specifically blaming it on Redknapp to be fair though. I read it as "By the time Redknapp took over" we had an 80 minute team.

It was quite some time after WGS had left though, with Sturrock and Wigley having done plenty of damage in between.

If Corbyn falls foul of the IHRA definition, as you claim he does, then the implication is that you believe he is antisemitic. You may not have used the exact words but you're not wriggling out of this purely on on semantics. Do you believe that Kenneth Stern falls foul of his own definition of antisemitism? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Well well well, this is interesting... https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/why-the-man-who-drafted-the-ihra-definition-condemns-its-use/ So JC and his party's decision to amend the wording of the examples provided with the IHRA definition, due to the possibility they could be used to shut down free speech relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict, appears to be fully supported by the very man who drafted the definition in the first place. So, by your logic hypo, does that also make him an antisemite?

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-ihra-doesnt-go-far-enough-labours-new-anti-semitism-guidelines-are-more-comprehensive/ You mean like asking the new General Secretary of the party to "make strengthening and speeding up procedures for dealing with anti-Semitism [her] first priority"?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-party

Still blissfully unaware of your own hypocrisy aren't you. Only a few pages back on this thread, you were happy to discuss a cross-party issue that had no direct connection to Corbyn... https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?54675-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-the-death-of-Labour-Party&p=2549799#post2549799 The bit in bold is particularly relevant here. Seemingly you believe that sexual harassment must be stamped out across the political spectrum (something about which we, for once, agree), and are happy discuss it on a thread about Jeremy Corbyn. But when somebody uses examples of prejudice in the governing party to highlight bias in the way Corbyn is treated in the media, that counts as pure deflection and a failure to admit there might be a problem in the Labour party (which, if you actually bother to read the content of my posts instead of just seeing what you want or expect to see, you will acknowledge that I have done). So, in actual fact, it is you is doing the deflecting here by flatly refusing to discuss antisemitism on a wider scale, and it makes me begin to question whether or not your actual agenda here is combat antisemitism wherever it exists, or if, like many others are, you are just using it as a convenient opportunity to stick the boot into Corbyn. And for the umpteenth time on this thread, I am not a corbynista, but I fully understand why it is helpful for people who are incapable of seeing the world in anything other than black and white terms, such as yourself, to pigeonhole anybody who disagrees with you. I fully recognise his flaws and weaknesses, and I do not believe he is the right man to lead Labour at a time when a strong opposition is so desperately needed. I am in full agreement with the last bit of edprice1984's earlier post and I find it a sad indictment of the state of British politics that he presents the only current alternative to May and her catastrophe of a government. So I'm not defending him out of blind loyalty - I have more objectivity than that. I have considered the evidence available and I do not believe that the accusation he himself is an antisemite is anything other than a cynical attempt to silence his criticisms of the atrocities carried out by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people.

I used those examples to highlight the extreme bias in the way that the issue is reported in the mainstream media and how, for whatever reason, Corbyn is quite blatantly being held to a higher standard than those in the actual party of government. That this point has gone right over your head does not surprise me in the slightest. No matter, I'll play your infantile little game if you like. I'll make sure to remind you of your posts here next time you want to discuss, say, the incarceration of Tommy Robinson in a thread about the broadcasting of Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech. Or perhaps when you have a hissy fit and get all triggered when somebody asks you to stay on topic in a football transfer related thread... https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?59852-Summer-2018-Transfer-HCDAJFU-Thread&p=2652669#post2652669 The very definition of hypocrisy right there

Quite easily... https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/new-jewish-labour-movement-director-was-israeli-embassy-officer

Careful Verbal. When you deliberately misrepresent someone in this way it makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously. The article does not say that the member complained about "Jews being Israeli foot soldiers". He used that term to describe a very specific group of people who may have an alternative agenda... He is, quite justifiably in my opinion, raising concerns about Israeli lobby groups trying to influence UK politics. If you succumb to the idea that this itself is antisemitic, then you are doing the dirty work of the Israeli government for them, because this is exactly the kind of intentional conflation between criticism of Israeli government actions and antisemitism that the Jewish Voice for Peace warned about in their position statement that Labour have supported. It is fallacious and it undermines efforts to combat genuine antisemitism.

They haven't 'refused to adopt the definition'. They have just taken issue with a number of the examples provided which, on the face of it, could be construed as conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy with genuine antisemitism. And they haven't done this unilaterally either - they are simply agreeing with the Jewish Voice for Peace who, together with 40+ international Jewish groups, have raised concerns about the intentional muddying of the waters which they claim "undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law." https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/first-ever-40-jewish-groups-worldwide-oppose-equating-antisemitism-with-criticism-of-israel/ Are they all just Antisemites too? What, you mean like appointing somebody who once referred to African people as "Flag-waving Picaninnies" to the post of Foreign Secretary?

What a wonderfully convenient excuse for you to continue to dismiss the possibility that this might be a problem that extends further than just the Labour party. It's almost as if you don't actually give a toss about combating antisemitism at all and are only interested in Corbyn-bashing.

And right on cue, you make my point perfectly for me. Why were we? Why is there so much media interest in it at the moment? Why is so much airtime and column inches being dedicated to dissecting and analysing this single issue while essentially ignoring other equally, or potentially more serious issues? Antisemitism is a form of racism, which itself is a form of discrimination. Any decent person surely wants to see all forms of discrimination eliminated from political parties. I know I do. So while I agree that the issue of antisemitism in Labour does clearly need to be addressed, it needs to be done so as part of a wider campaign to root out and combat prejudice and bigotry of all kinds from the entirety of mainstream politics. When so much emphasis and scrutiny is placed on one singular aspect of that, as is the case at the moment with antisemitism in Labour, it kinda makes it look like the people doing so aren't really bothered about the bigger picture and actually have a hidden agenda.

Yes, it does. It has a lot of relevance when we are discussing racism and discrimination within major political parties. If the current level of outrage in the media is genuinely about stamping out racism and discrimination from mainstream politics then why are they solely going after the opposition party and completely ignoring warnings from the former Conservative chair about rampant and institutional islamophobia within her party?

Go on then LD, I'll bite... What is your evidence for this assertion?

This is a very good article for those who want to invest the time reading it... https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

Anybody who thinks there is not even a hint of a problem with antisemitism within the Labour party is simply wrong. There are pockets/fringes of it in all walks of life, as confirmed by multiple survey reports in the last couple of years which show that antisemitic attitudes do exist with the Labour party. Interestingly, the same reports show that rates of antisemitic attitudes are higher in the Tories, but apparently I'm not allowed to discuss that on this thread without being accused of whataboutery. So to deny that the problem exists at all is clearly fallacious, and only leaves those who do open to attack and ridicule. Outright antisemitism - the discrimination of people on the basis of their being Jewish - is abhorrent and needs to be stamped out of society, as do all forms of racism and similar types of blanket discrimination. However, what is absolutely undeniable currently is that the issue of it within Labour is being heavily weaponised as a means to attack and discredit Corbyn by his political opponents, including many opportunists within his own party. It's so obvious, and cannot be denied by anybody with even the slightest degree of objectivity. It's the double standards and the hypocrisy that show it up for what it is. For instance - I was listening to a BBC radio station yesterday, and their lead item on the morning news bulletin was about Corbyn attending an event on holocaust memorial day 8 years ago, where there was a contribution from a man who likened the suffering of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government to that of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. What they failed to mention is that the man in question was in fact a Jewish holocaust survivor, and that Corbyn only opened the meeting and had already left to attend a debate in the HoC by the time the man spoke. it's a total non-story FFS, but apparently it is sooooo newsworthy that it gets top billing on the BBC radio news 8 years later. Then last night on Newsnight, Emily Maitlis interviews Blairite Labour MP Louise Ellman, who says she was "absolutely appalled" to hear about Corbyn's involvement in the event. She failed to mention, and Maitlis failed to pick her up on the fact that she was at the event herself and stayed for the duration (including Hajo Meyer's speech) while Corbyn left to attend parliament. A more blatant display of hypocrisy and opportunism to stick the boot into Corbyn you will never see. But the BBC again failed to mention the very important detail that Meyer is a holocaust survivor himself, and she gets an absolute free ride. Contrast that with the revelations that Three senior Tories, including a cabinet minister, have recently had illicit meetings with Steve Bannon - a self-confessed white supremacist and peddler of alt-right fake news who believes people should "wear their racism as a badge of honour" and who has been described by his ex-wife as being deeply antisemitic. Where is the media outrage about this? Why isn't that headline news on the BBC? Even the Jewish Chronicle have defended JC against the hypocrisy from Boris Johnson in attacking him for it while courting such a vile extremist. Baroness Warsi claims that the Tories have a huge problem with Islamophobia and calls for a full enquiry, and says that elite indifference to the issue meant the Tories were stuck with a political strategy that amounted little more than “f*ck the Muslims”. Michael Fabricant shares a deeply offensive image of Sadiq Khan being mounted by a pig - blatant outright Islamophobia. He apologises and that's the end of it. Again, where is the ourage in the media? Why isn't Theresa May being hounded every single day by reporters, columnists and even the supposedly impartial state broadcaster for failing to adequately address the problem? The double standards are just mindbendingly obvious and appalling. So is there a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party? yes, that cannot be denied. Is there a widespread and intrinsic culture of antisemitism at the root of the party and its leadership that Verbal insists there is? No. Is this issue currently being politicised and being blown out of proportion by critics of JC? Absolutely yes. If people want to combat antisemitism because it is an abhorrent stain on humanity and needs to be eradicated then I applaud and support that. But if people are just going to use it as a convenient way to score cheap political points against someone who, for all his other faults, is demonstrably the most passionate anti-racism campaigner in British politics over the last 40 years, then they can go f*ck themselves IMO.

Clearly you didn't actually read the whole post

A defence tech company that has very close ties to the DSTL at Porton Down, which just happens to be the only facility in the country that has samples of or the capability to manufacture novichok. Some were highlighting the close proximity of the original incident to Porton Down as being suspicious. Taken in isolation, yes it is not out of the question to put that down to pure coincidence. But now it turns out that the former partner of one of the victims works for a company that operates there? But no, it must have been those pesky Russians.

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-24/charlie-rowley-novichok-amesbury/ So Charlie Rowley found an unopened bottle of expensive looking perfume and decided to give it to his girlfriend as a gift. He can't remember where he found it, but he was certain it was legitimate. He spilled some of the bottle contents on his hands when trying to put it in the box, and it was an oily substance that didn't smell of perfume, but he still gave it to her as a present anyway. Well I'm convinced And now it turns out that Dawn Sturgess' former partner is a long term employee of a major defence tech company that was formed following the privatisation of DERA, but I'm sure that's just another coincidence. Is anybody still believing this b0llox?

Just installed Neptune Rising and it seems to be pretty good and reliable so far.

If people were calling for Gallagher to be our first choice striker then I would agree with everything you have posted, but as far as I can see nobody is making any such suggestion. I would much rather have him available as a backup/sub than Carrillo.

Yeah I thought that at the time and wondered why the 'taters didn't suggest it.

You seem to be forgetting about the Home Office report which pretty much concluded that reduced police budget and numbers was highly likely to be a contributing factor in the rise in violent crime - the one that Amber Rudd pretended she hadn't read after she contradicted it. At this stage there is absolutely zero evidence that it was anything else. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44806139