Sheaf Saint

If we sell him to one of our rivals you can bet your house he would end up scoring a 30-yard free kick against us after making an entire career out of just missing them for us so far.

https://twitter.com/ta_mills/status/1027112699237478400 Let's see who's going to try and concoct a coherent argument in support of option (a), shall we?

Fulham have signed left-back Joe Bryan from Bristol City. Puts an end to their interest in Targett then.

Patrick Stewart to reprise his role as Jean-Luc Picard in a new Star Trek series. https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/star-trek-patrick-stewart-picard-cbs-all-access-1202895410/

We can, on the basis that his form for most of last season was utter turd.

Please enlighten us on the real context then. FWIW, Bannon is also an extreme anti-semite. He is repsonisble for the publishing of articles on Breitbart where Richard Spencer stated that "Jews have no place in the United Sates". He also approved an article in which it was calimed "Hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned". All the accusations against Corbyn currently are that he has hosted and engaged with people whose views could be considered antisemitic if you accept that the term also encompasses people who have deep misgivings about the treatment of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel. Yet when BoZo can have meetings withe people who are actual Jew-hating antisemites, the lack of equivalent outrage from the media is extremely telling.

Hodge has always had a grudge against Corbyn, as the below snippet from 1995 shows. I very much doubt she really knows him well at all. I would be minded to accept the word of people who have worked closely with him for decades over hers.

And this is entirely the point. There is undoubtedly a conversation to be had about whether or not niqabs/burqas represent a security threat, a symbol of patriarchal oppression or, as The Imam quoted above claims, a health risk due to vitamin D deficiency. But comparing women who wear them to letter boxes and bank robbers is absolutely not the right way to go about that. BoZo knew what he was doing, and the fact that he refuses to apologise sends a signal to every one of his supporters that this kind of prejudice is perfectly OK. It legitimises their pre-existing bigotry and will only embolden them to start showing it outwardly. Only a matter of time before we see another spike in the reporting of hate crimes similar to the one we saw after the Brexit vote. Remember, this is a man who only last week was reported to have had meetings with a white supremacist who has been quoted as saying "Let them call you racist. Wear it as a badge of honour". We live in dark times when the prevailing attitudes among the media are to savagely villify a man who has spent his entire political career fighting racism of all kinds, yet give a man who has been an overt racist his entire life a free pass to stir up ethnic tensions however he sees fit.

The term itself may well be, but the sentiment behind it most certainly isn't and you know that full well. Anyway, isn't this going a little bit too off-topic for you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b66bc111-d70f-4049-8bcd-c6c4b6dd3f75 Ranked 16th out of all the PL clubs this season, according to this. Obviously it's all subjective, and in places this looks like it has been written by a schoolkid, but I'd say he's got us about right. The home kit isn't brilliant, and the 3rd kit it utterly pointless. But I am glad we got our yellows back again - feels like such a long time.

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?