Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

This was indeed a fringe meeting, but:

• It was advertised in the labour party official conference guide, and on their app.
• It was chaired by a member of the party who spoke on the main platform earlier in the day.
• The meeting became an anti-semitic diatribe where it was suggested that Jews and any Jewish Organisation be purged from the party. That included the JLM which has been affiliated to the labour party for longer than any of the attendees have been alive.
• This happened the night before a vote on rule changes that would bring the labour party to where it should have been years ago in terms of dealing with anti-semitism.

The group that organised this meeting should be banned from advertising their meetings on official labour party literature. There should also be action against the chair of the meeting, firstly for standing by and allowing the meeting descend into anti semitism, and also because she's clearly stupid enough to not see the wider picture, and the context of the meeting.

Ironically the leader of Brighton Council (who is labour) is thinking about banning labour party conferences from Brighton unless they get a handle of anti-semitism!

Sky News

They are a shambles, and will remain so whilst ********* is around.

yes fringe events are advertised as conferences are sprawling busy events where delegates are given all of the options on what to listen to - that is obviously done in advance where you cannot know what an individual is going to say.

First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?


Second question: from what I have read one speaker at a fringe event was listing subjects that should not be off limits to discuss and in his list he spoke of the Holocaust and has been rightly condemned by party figures (seems the individual is likely not a member). How did you get from that to this:

• The meeting became an anti-semitic diatribe where it was suggested that Jews and any Jewish Organisation be purged from the party. That included the JLM which has been affiliated to the labour party for longer than any of the attendees have been alive.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Perhaps you should have booked in at a fringe event at this years Labour conference...in order to hear what are being described as anti semetic views.

Is Tom watson also a mischief maker for saying that this shouldn't have happened?

Rather think Tom Watson is on borrowed time atm.He was clearly on maneouvres against JC this time last year.

Unite members (as they showed yesterday by their silence during his speech) haven't forgotten.Nor have others in the Labour movement.

 

[londonblue]

yes fringe events are advertised as conferences are sprawling busy events where delegates are given all of the options on what to listen to - that is obviously done in advance where you cannot know what an individual is going to say.

First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?


Second question: from what I have read one speaker at a fringe event was listing subjects that should not be off limits to discuss and in his list he spoke of the Holocaust and has been rightly condemned by party figures (seems the individual is likely not a member). How did you get from that to this:

• The meeting became an anti-semitic diatribe where it was suggested that Jews and any Jewish Organisation be purged from the party. That included the JLM which has been affiliated to the labour party for longer than any of the attendees have been alive.

Because, according to Jeremy Newmark (in his interview on Sky News) the meeting called for Jews and Jewish organisations to be purged from the party. Don't you think that is anti semitic? You ought to have a look at the interview, I tried to link it but failed miserably as I can only find it on FB, and not on the Sky website at the moment.

The party is a shambles and will remain so whilst ********* is around. So much so the leader of Brighton council think the party might need to be banned from holding its conference in the town because of anti semitism.

What action do you think should be taken against the organisation that conducted the meeting, and the chair of that meeting for allowing the meeting to descend into an anti-semitic diatribe?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Because, according to Jeremy Newmark (in his interview on Sky News) the meeting called for Jews and Jewish organisations to be purged from the party. Don't you think that is anti semitic? You ought to have a look at the interview, I tried to link it but failed miserably as I can only find it on FB, and not on the Sky website at the moment.

The party is a shambles and will remain so whilst ********* is around. So much so the leader of Brighton council think the party might need to be banned from holding its conference in the town because of anti semitism.

What action do you think should be taken against the organisation that conducted the meeting, and the chair of that meeting for allowing the meeting to descend into an anti-semitic diatribe?

I avoid the Murdoch media but if I can track down the interview I'll get back to you - that doesn't seem to have been reported in those terms elsewhere to my knowledge.

First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Because, according to Jeremy Newmark (in his interview on Sky News) the meeting called for Jews and Jewish organisations to be purged from the party. Don't you think that is anti semitic? You ought to have a look at the interview, I tried to link it but failed miserably as I can only find it on FB, and not on the Sky website at the moment.

The party is a shambles and will remain so whilst ********* is around. So much so the leader of Brighton council think the party might need to be banned from holding its conference in the town because of anti semitism.

What action do you think should be taken against the organisation that conducted the meeting, and the chair of that meeting for allowing the meeting to descend into an anti-semitic diatribe?

There were similar reports of what was said at the meeting on BBC2's Daily Politics show (live from Brighton yesterday lunchtime)- concerning Jewish organisations attached to the party not individual Jews,BTW.

Of course these remarks are anti-semitic.But as *** has already pointed out, they would appear to have been made by someone who was not a Labour party member.

I really don't think you're prepared to listen to reason on this issue but in my experience Labour is most certainly not an anti-semitic organisation.As I've said before, you need to distinguish between what is justified criticsm of Israel's Zionist policies towards the Palestinian people and anti-semitism as such.

Even Ken Loach pointed out yesterday that Israel was responsible for ethnic cleansing in its very foundation.Is Ken Loach anti-semitic? I don't think so.

 

[londonblue]

There were similar reports of what was said at the meeting on BBC2's Daily Politics show (live from Brighton yesterday lunchtime)- concerning Jewish organisations attached to the party not individual Jews,BTW.

Of course these remarks are anti-semitic.But as *** has already pointed out, they would appear to have been made by someone who was not a Labour party member.

So, even though *** hasn't answered the question, what action should be taken against the organisation that hosted the meeting and the chair of the meeting?

I really don't think you're prepared to listen to reason on this issue but in my experience Labour is most certainly not an anti-semitic organisation.As I've said before, you need to distinguish between what is justified criticsm of Israel's Zionist policies towards the Palestinian people and anti-semitism as such.

I really don't think you're prepared to listen to reason on this issue. As I have said before, legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is fine, but when it spills over into anti semitism it isn't. The problem is this happens time and time again, and is either ignored or brushed under the carpet. I have never said that the labour party is anti semitic, I've said it is soft on anti semitism, and this episode proves it still hasn't got its house in order.

Even Ken Loach pointed out yesterday that Israel was responsible for ethnic cleansing in its very foundation.Is Ken Loach anti-semitic? I don't think so.

Ken Loach also said that whether or not the Holocaust happened should be up for discussion. I think he is.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So, even though *** hasn't answered the question, what action should be taken against the organisation that hosted the meeting and the chair of the meeting?



I really don't think you're prepared to listen to reason on this issue. As I have said before, legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is fine, but when it spills over into anti semitism it isn't. The problem is this happens time and time again, and is either ignored or brushed under the carpet. I have never said that the labour party is anti semitic, I've said it is soft on anti semitism, and this episode proves it still hasn't got its house in order.



Ken Loach also said that whether or not the Holocaust happened should be up for discussion. I think he is.

the reason I haven't answered your question is because it relies on information I have not seen and Sky are not putting it anywhere where I can see it. From the limited information I have I would say the individual should be banned from speaking at such events, there is nothing available so far to indicate he is a party member or that the Chair of the meeting would have any indication of what this individual was going to say. With more verifiable information I'd have more to say no doubt.

Information that should easily be accessed is the information to answer this:


First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?

 

[londonblue]

the reason I haven't answered your question is because it relies on information I have not seen and Sky are not putting it anywhere where I can see it. From the limited information I have I would say the individual should be banned from speaking at such events, there is nothing available so far to indicate he is a party member or that the Chair of the meeting would have any indication of what this individual was going to say. With more verifiable information I'd have more to say no doubt.

Information that should easily be accessed is the information to answer this:


First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?

I didn't ask about the person. I asked about the organisation that hosted the meeting, and the chair of that meeting.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I didn't ask about the person. I asked about the organisation that hosted the meeting, and the chair of that meeting.

I don't know who set it up or what the premise was for the talks - when I know I'll form an opinion. It's front page news in that hate-rag the Mail, most other news outlets that I have seen seem to be treating it as an individual crank who had be rightly chastised by senior party figures.

First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

This is a thread that's dedicated to Jeremy Corybn.I've just seen him give a wonderful speech to the Labour party conference at Brighton.Over an hour long.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41408150

 

[londonblue]

I don't know who set it up or what the premise was for the talks - when I know I'll form an opinion. It's front page news in that hate-rag the Mail, most other news outlets that I have seen seem to be treating it as an individual crank who had be rightly chastised by senior party figures.

First question: The name ********* - how did you come to that, sounds like you are trying the make his name sound Islamic which is a bit odd to say the least - what is your thinking behind that?

I don't get it. You don't need to know who set up the meeting. It was advertised on the labour conference literature. It doesn't matter who it was. Given what you have been told, what action would you take against that organisation, whoever it is, and against the chair of the meeting?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I don't get it. You don't need to know who set up the meeting. It was advertised on the labour conference literature. It doesn't matter who it was. Given what you have been told, what action would you take against that organisation, whoever it is, and against the chair of the meeting?

I condemn the individual who made the comments.
Why are you so desperate for me to condemn an unknown person or people who set up a talk - the title / subject of which neither of us know, the parameters of which neither of us know? Why are you so eager to get me to condemn anyone who has some or no connection with this individual. Makes no sense for me to condemn the existence of a meeting that I know nothing about other than that one person made statements that have been condemned.


You hate Corbyn. You have given Corbyn a nickname that makes him sound like he is Islamic. Does that strike you as sounding racist – that you seem to be associating Muslims with a politician whom you despise. I’ve asked you 4, now 5 times to explain why you call him that as I don’t want to make assumptions but you have ignored my question. I’d suggest you stop using that nickname as it has an aura of racism about it, and that is something I am sure you are not so I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

This is a thread that's dedicated to Jeremy Corybn.I've just seen him give a wonderful speech to the Labour party conference at Brighton.Over an hour long.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41408150

He mocked the hostile coverage of his campaign, saying attacks by newspapers like the Daily Mail had actually helped his party's polling.
"Never have so many trees died in vain," he said.

This seems to be the case - trust in the media dips lower every day and people seem more and more to ignore what is written in media outlets that have an agenda. Yesterday in George Osborne's Evening Standard - massive front page headline 'LABOUR AT WAR OVER EU' and when you read the article it was based on Sadiq Khan (who had put the recent success of Labour down to Corbyn) saying there 'maybe' a 2nd referendum. Desperate stuff that most people seem to sidestep when voting - still frustrates the hell out of me though.

 

[Uncle Leo]

"Don't know" sitting nicely in second, could it take the lead by the end of conference season?

 

[londonblue]

I condemn the individual who made the comments.
Why are you so desperate for me to condemn an unknown person or people who set up a talk - the title / subject of which neither of us know, the parameters of which neither of us know? Why are you so eager to get me to condemn anyone who has some or no connection with this individual. Makes no sense for me to condemn the existence of a meeting that I know nothing about other than that one person made statements that have been condemned.


You hate Corbyn. You have given Corbyn a nickname that makes him sound like he is Islamic. Does that strike you as sounding racist – that you seem to be associating Muslims with a politician whom you despise. I’ve asked you 4, now 5 times to explain why you call him that as I don’t want to make assumptions but you have ignored my question. I’d suggest you stop using that nickname as it has an aura of racism about it, and that is something I am sure you are not so I think you are doing yourself a disservice.

So you don't condemn the organisation that set up the meeting and allowed this to happen even though it is affiliated to the labour party? You don't condemn the chair of the meeting that didn't put a stop to it even though she was a speaker on the main platform earlier in the day.

I think what you have just allowed me to prove is that I am right: the labour party is soft on anti-semitism. They are a shambles and will remain so whilst ********* is around.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So you don't condemn the organisation that set up the meeting and allowed this to happen even though it is affiliated to the labour party? You don't condemn the chair of the meeting that didn't put a stop to it even though she was a speaker on the main platform earlier in the day.

I think what you have just allowed me to prove is that I am right: the labour party is soft on anti-semitism. They are a shambles and will remain so whilst ********* is around.

You want other people to take responsibility for someone whom made statements that they presumably did not expect the individual to make.

You want people to be condemned for someone else's language yet you won't even explain your own choice of words.

Why do you think you can use such dubious terminology and seemingly have no inclination to explain yourself, yet you expect condemnation of others to be thrown around without knowing the full facts.

You have the floor - why do you choose to use such dubious terminology? Why do you not feel the need to explain yourself?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

"Don't know" sitting nicely in second, could it take the lead by the end of conference season?

In the 'how well is X doing their job' Corbyn is consistently ahead of May ('ahead' is a positive spin as they both poll in the negative figures) so presumably the 'don't knows' are leaning more his way. Theresa has a chance to make an impact at the Tory conference now - its all in her hands....

 

[londonblue]

You want other people to take responsibility for someone whom made statements that they presumably did not expect the individual to make.

You want people to be condemned for someone else's language yet you won't even explain your own choice of words.

Why do you think you can use such dubious terminology and seemingly have no inclination to explain yourself, yet you expect condemnation of others to be thrown around without knowing the full facts.

You have the floor - why do you choose to use such dubious terminology? Why do you not feel the need to explain yourself?

I think you've further proved my point. The labour party simply doesn't take this seriously. They look to find excuses and reasons not to do something rather than actually be proactive.

 

[Uncle Leo]

In the 'how well is X doing their job' Corbyn is consistently ahead of May ('ahead' is a positive spin as they both poll in the negative figures) so presumably the 'don't knows' are leaning more his way. Theresa has a chance to make an impact at the Tory conference now - its all in her hands....

And we've seen what an impact she can make when given the chance!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think you've further proved my point. The labour party simply doesn't take this seriously. They look to find excuses and reasons not to do something rather than actually be proactive.

I suggest you pop into your local Tory party HQ or golf club if you seriously want to find some members who are anti-semitic.