Verbal

In other words, the Brexit Jihadists who caused this appalling mess are blaming the people who said it would be an appalling mess all along. Oh, and the 'fun' you'll be having? That'll be the sound of the British economy hitting the buffers. Which will be fun for those turfed out of a job.

For fu ck's sake give it a rest with your head-crushingly boring feud, and stay on topic, which apparently is now how you can't see a difference between Trump claiming that women 'let' him attack them and Weinstein's defence that women let him attack them.

This is what Trump actually said: Trump: "Better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Bush: "Whatever you want." Trump: "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." I have never heard anyone - not even Trump - defend this appalling excuse for attacking women on the grounds you've chosen. I suppose you think Weinstein - whose defence is precisely the one you're offering - is also raping and assaulting women 'consensually'. You need help. Or a restraining order.

Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, and wouldn't have been pick of the month with the rabid Republican right. But to suggest any equivalence - or worse - with Trump takes numptiness to a new level.

This should be framed by Banksy. Looking better with every passing day.

Weird how you often pretend that what you post on here are your thoughts - when in fact you've simply lifted extremist guff in order to make you look... well, what exactly? So as for the above, I'll simply ask: are you now or have you ever been a Moonie?

Now that even Mike Godwin - he of Godwin's Law - says it's okay to compare some the actions and behaviour of the Trump regime with those of the Nazis, here's an interesting read for the historians among you... https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/

Tsk, tsk. One of those plusses is the EU's backstop of a border in the Irish Sea. A deal-breaker for the DUP. There's no parliamentary majority for Canada, no matter how many plusses are added, as it also fails the '6 tests' set out by Keir Starmer. There just aren't enough Brexiteer rebels among Labour MPs to save May if she suddenly abandons Chequers (which is dead anyway).

The truth is catching up with Corbyn. He and the Corbynist cabal have now dropped their complaint to IPSO about those nasty press reports that he laid a wreath on top of a plaque celebrating one of the Black September leaders responsible for planning the Munich attack on Israeli athletes. Funny how, after all the grandstanding against the evil MSM, he's just caved. The reason is not hard to find. He unquestionably did lay that wreath. He would lose the case, not least because the visual evidence is overwhelming. The only doubt is whether he was too stupid not to ask who he was honouring at that plaque. Or, more likely in my view, he knew perfectly well that he was commemorating a notorious murderer.

Dear god, how to explain this to you? If a report exonerated May of the Windrush scandal, and it turned out to be written by a Tory party central office researcher, then it would be legitimate to 'play the man', right? I mean, how the hell do you take seriously a report written by one of her flunkies? Shlosberg is not only a Corbynist. He makes clear in the actual report you link to here that he's an 'active' member of Jewish Voice for Labour - the group of Jews and 'self-identifying Jews' (!) that was set up specifically, just in the last year, to ride shotgun with Corbyn against the mainstream Jewish community's complaints of Corbynist anti-Semitism. This is the group, by the way, that has targeted and harassed members of the Jewish Labour Movement, which has been affiliated with the Labour party since 1920. Shlosberg then makes the specious claim to 'independence'. You go one further than this absurdity, though - and claim the report is 'objective'? Please, please tell me you can see now that that's nonsense! As for content, there's a whole section on methodology at the beginning that amounts to a complete red herring. There's a great deal of guff about 'coding', which appears to give a gloss on how the 'data' is handled. And there is a great song and dance about how Shlosberg has been 'cautious' with the data given the 'sensitivity of the subject. But then he and the freelance journalist he roped in go on to ignore all that and give their own highly personalised (and Corbynised) interpretations of issues like 'Codegate', enter their interpretations into the 'code' and hey presto - Corbynists are innocent! The press are evil! ERGO - Corbynists are not anti-Semitic at all! One non-sequiter after another...

Who would have thought that the Corbynist Justin Schlosberg would have written a report defending Corbyn. I'm shocked.

Give an example of this, Lord Crap. An actual example. Like a link to a new report or a piece of analysis they've done.

Shylock is wrong about most things (damn his people) but he's right about this.

Criticise Phillips for her repellant views by all means. But once you start likening a Jewish woman to, quote, 'actual Nazis', you're using an anti-Semitic slur. That is, unless you can show that she advocates what 'actual Nazis' did - throwing 15,000 gay people into death camps and kill up to 15,000 of them.

So, a Corbynista cultist likening the views of a Jewish woman to the Nazis. What a surprise.

I'm not surprised. Her views are awful. What's your point?

This is untrue, of course, and a reminder of your problem with Jewish women. Just to underline, though, your strawmanning of Jews with the 'keep it in historical perspective' line is one of the crassest things I've seen on a thread that's peppered with the literary gems of aintforever and fanboy.

I wish you wouldn't withdraw. You've made excellent points, not least to people who think it's acceptable to gentile-splain to Jews how they should keep things 'in perspective'. I've encountered the same thing among friends in London and elsewhere - a sense of fear and anxiety which certainly has led in some cases to people thinking they should leave. No one I know has ever compared the virulent anti-Semitism in the Corbynist wing of the party as anything remotely like Nazi Germany, not least because it's mostly a different variant of hatred (you'll still find the classical Jew-hatred though, as has been raised and dismissed on this thread). Corbynist anti-Semitism equates Zionism in general with the horrors of the Netanyahu regime, so aims vile abuse at groupings like the Jewish Labour movement and against individual Jewish Labour party members, especially anyone who dared take place in the protest outside parliament. This variant has antecedents in Stalinism, and has been incubated in the British far Left for decades (I was certainly aware of it 30 years ago). Jews have not lost 'perspective'. Their fears, as objects of loathing, should not be dismissed, or revised as unreasonable. They should especially not be told what to think; they should be listened to. There's every chance that will not happen.

So will the utter tw ats on here but especially elsewhere admit that they were wrong? And that they were among the few stupid enough to fall for yet another of the Putin regime's relentless disinformation campaigns? I'm guessing no. I'm also guessing that their utter fu ckwittery means they'll be doubling down on their mindless repetitions of the garbage from Russian troll factories. And that they'll be slamming the BBC and the 'MSM' for being the real culprits. Incidentally, if you want to see an absolutely stellar piece of BBC investigative journalism, with a real impact,watch this - one of the most gut-wrenchingly awful incidents, covered up by a regime but then brilliantly exposed. https://twitter.com/BBCAfrica/status/1044186344153583616

You having an Jihadist's exotic spesm there Lord T? Better get that seen to by a specialist (although check the surname first). And talking of Jihadists, here's how to destroy one in two easy Twitter threads: https://twitter.com/i/moments/1044617621054922753 https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1044323498754215941

He's a terrible public speaker but a surprisingly effective operator in the shark pool of the Corbyn clique. Until he gets deselected, no doubt. But as for grasping defeat from victory, you could put a reclaimed brick into the leadership and it'll be an improvement on St Jezza. Labour is still polling behind the Tories in the majority of recent opinion polls. That's behind the most incompetent, poisonous, anti-business, anti-anything Conservative government in modern history. Labour should be at least 20 points ahead on a bad day, but the cult will never see it - or they'll resort to their usual 'the media done us in' bleating.

Assuming an economy shaped by the 2017 Labour manifesto, we'd have the same private/public mix, approximately, as Canada, and far more private than public compared with Sweden or Denmark, for example. So in principle, nothing seems undoable. But...it's Jeremy fu cking Corbyn, and that name alone is an anagram for 'run on the pound'.

True, it doesn't. As I said, it's the votes of the CLPs. It took the unions (as undemocratic as they are) to bang some sense into the conference programme. Remember, the CLPs are at the core of Corbyn's 'reforms' - it's not clear that the unions will be in a position to give the veneer of common sense in future annual conferences. I personally don't mind the unions losing their influence over conference agendas - I've seen it up and close for years and it's classic smoke-filled-room stuff. But such is the state of CLPs now, which have been turned into culture-war skirmishes (hence 'Palestine'), that I don't see much of a future for a party that needs to face an electorate with a straight face.

Labour insider who's seen the numbers. Here are those numbers: https://twitter.com/220_d_92_20/status/1043900298618699778

Constituency Labour Parties' top 'priorities' ballot for this week's conference: 1. Housing 2. School system 3. Windrush 4. Palestine 5. Brexit 6. NHS 7. Welfare system So Palestine (I think they mean Israel and the occupied territories) more important than Brexit, NHS and welfare. Brilliant.