• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

I find that statement a little worrying Barna. Do you mean that the PLP is in the process of changing from being a broad church to being a sect?
It says on the back of my membership card that 'the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party'. That being the case it is not the party for Blairite remnants and members of the Progress sect who will hopefully cross the floor to their natural home or get deselected before the next GE.
 
See my reply abovee.Unfortunately,without international support this doesn't have legs.

Our specialists claim they have the proof. They have shown it to the relevant government authority, which they have in turn conveyed to the public. Unless you doubt our scientists, or believe it to be some conspiracy, then It has to now be treated as factual & straight forward. That goes for me, you, JC and everyone else. Claiming you need "confirmation" from external sources, is simply stalling for time.

You see, the actions carried out, are so serious, that they demand some form of immediate reaction. Theresa May had no alternative, other than to act swiftly, and show Putin that we are taking this matter very seriously. JC can't even bring himself to condemn Russia, let alone offer any kind of retaliatory move. Hiding behind claims of "needing international backing" are not only spineless & pathetic, but they show him up for what he is, a man who would be utterly useless in a crisis.

And whilst we're on the Reds, can you even begin to imagine a team of Corbyn, Abbott & Thornberry, trying to stand up to Putin, in a scenario like this. Jesus ****, it'd be like lambs to the slaughter. Abbott would have accused him of poisoning 8,653 people, Thornberry would just repeatedly scream racist at him, and the ol' lathario himself, would be too busy trying to woo the racist, wig-wearing one, by his side, to even know what Putin's allegedly done.
 
It says on the back of my membership card that 'the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party'. That being the case it is not the party for Blairite remnants and members of the Progress sect who will hopefully cross the floor to their natural home or get deselected before the next GE.

Being deselected for not being quite socialist enough seems rather undemocratic.

Keep that red flag flying.
 
Our specialists claim they have the proof. They have shown it to the relevant government authority, which they have in turn conveyed to the public. Unless you doubt our scientists, or believe it to be some conspiracy, then It has to now be treated as factual & straight forward. That goes for me, you, JC and everyone else. Claiming you need "confirmation" from external sources, is simply stalling for time.

You see, the actions carried out, are so serious, that they demand some form of immediate reaction. Theresa May had no alternative, other than to act swiftly, and show Putin that we are taking this matter very seriously. JC can't even bring himself to condemn Russia, let alone offer any kind of retaliatory move. Hiding behind claims of "needing international backing" are not only spineless & pathetic, but they show him up for what he is, a man who would be utterly useless in a crisis.

And whilst we're on the Reds, can you even begin to imagine a team of Corbyn, Abbott & Thornberry, trying to stand up to Putin, in a scenario like this. Jesus ****, it'd be like lambs to the slaughter. Abbott would have accused him of poisoning 8,653 people, Thornberry would just repeatedly scream racist at him, and the ol' lathario himself, would be too busy trying to woo the racist, wig-wearing one, by his side, to even know what Putin's allegedly done.

International support in the form of USA , France and Germany. Probably not international enough for the plastic commie but what are you gonna do.
 
Being deselected for not being quite socialist enough seems rather undemocratic.

Keep that red flag flying.
The members will decide eventually which is about as democratic as you can get compared to Blair's policy of parachuting in candidates often against the wishes of the local parties.
 
That had sweet FA to do with that big orange baby and all to do with South Korea sitting down and talking like grown ups. Trump's willy waving did nothing but make KJ fire more missiles.
Really? it appeared classic Good Cop Bad Cop stuff, or carrot/stick approach to get closer to talking.
 
Obviously in the press you get a version of people's words so this is what Corbyn said in Parliament on 14th March.


I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement on this deeply alarming attack, which raises very serious questions. The whole House condemns the suspected poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury and, of course, we wish them a return to good health. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey a speedy recovery as well. No member of our police force and nobody on the streets of Britain should ever face such an attack—let alone one with chemical weapons.


I thank the Prime Minister for updating the House. The investigation into the shocking events in Salisbury must reach its conclusions. We need to see both the evidence and a full account from the Russian authorities in the light of the emerging evidence to which the Prime Minister referred. For now, can the Prime Minister clarify what level of threat it was believed that Mr Skripal faced at the time of the attack and what security protection, if any, was deemed necessary for him and his daughter?


This morning, the Conservative Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said that he would be “surprised” if the Prime Minister


“did not point the finger at the Kremlin”.


The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) also accused the Russian Government of behaving “aggressively” and in “a corrupting way” in this country.


We need continue seeking a robust dialogue with Russia on all the issues—both domestic and international—currently dividing our countries, rather than simply cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and, potentially, even more dangerous.


We are all familiar with the way in which huge fortunes, often acquired in the most dubious circumstances in Russia and sometimes connected with criminal elements, have ended up sheltering in London and trying to buy political influence in British party politics—“meddling in elections”, as the Prime Minister put it. There have been more than £800,000 of donations to the Conservative party from Russian oligarchs and their associates. If that is the evidence before the Government, they could be taking action to introduce new financial sanctions powers even before the investigation into Salisbury is complete. But instead they are currently resisting Labour’s amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill that could introduce the so-called Magnitsky powers. Will the Prime Minister agree today to back those amendments?


More specifically, when it comes to the Salisbury attack, what actions are the local police taking to identify fellow diners at the Zizzi restaurant and the Mill pub in Salisbury on the day in question and to ensure that they come forward and are checked? What extra resources are being provided to the local police force, which quite understandably has never had to deal with such an incident before?


We know that the national health service is under incredible pressures across the country, but what extra resources have been provided to the NHS hospitals in and around Salisbury, and what training has been given to NHS staff and GPs in identifying the symptoms of a nerve agent attack?


The events in Salisbury on 4 March have appalled the country and need thorough investigation. The local community and public services involved need reassurance and the necessary resources. The action that the Government take once the facts are clear needs to be both decisive and proportionate, and focused on reducing conflict and tensions, rather than increasing them.


I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the magnificent work of our public services responding to this attack: the NHS staff, the police and security services, the armed forces and the analysts at Porton Down. Let us do everything we can to ensure that this never ever happens again.
 
I'm just glad they had the sense to distance themselves from such a naive comment. I think ********* has spent too much time watching Russia Today.
Russia Today is a strange stick to beat someone with. I've seen it dropped into various newspaper articles as a subliminal slight. A fact that should be shared for a bit of balance is that the UK party that have benefited most financially from appearances on RT is the Conservatives.
 
JC has every right to ask what evidence we have that Russia or Putin are behind this attack. We have been to war in Iraq over a blatant lie by a previous PM, who claimed he had overwhelming intelligence.

The first question is why not just shoot someone if you want to execute them. Rather than risk innocent deaths and international incident.....Unless of course that exactly what you want.

I just been talking with a fellow Firefighter who like me, had specialist training for this sort of event. We both agree that alarming questions need to be asked about the response and why clear and well practiced procedures have not been followed.

What about the Anthrax attack that killed 5 and injured many others in the USA just a few weeks after 9/11. The world was told it was clearly muslims. Later it was scientifically proved that it could only have come from one specific US military lab.

Look up the scientist by the name of Bruce Ivins. He was harassed and accused the just like our own Dr Kelly, then conveniently committed suicide...So case closed

Strangely the only Senators who were sent letters containing anthrax were the 2 who opposed the patriot act, which of course they quickly signed......Something Bruce Ivins could not have possible known when they were posted.....Careful JC there's far more danger out there than just the Russians.
Daily Mail Online (I don't read it, someone else has flagged it up) has an article calling Corbyn a traitor for asking for emphatic evidence that the attack was carried out by Russia, then it has another article saying chemical weapons experts have not ruled out the substances having been stolen in the post Soviet chaos in the 90's.
 
Obviously in the press you get a version of people's words so this is what Corbyn said in Parliament on 14th March.


I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement on this deeply alarming attack, which raises very serious questions. The whole House condemns the suspected poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury and, of course, we wish them a return to good health. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey a speedy recovery as well. No member of our police force and nobody on the streets of Britain should ever face such an attack—let alone one with chemical weapons.

Did he really say that. Just exactly what is suspect about it?

I think it's pretty plain for even the most mediocre of opposition leaders to see that it was in fact a poisoning and cannot be attributed to anything else.
 
Interesting article in the Metro yesterday:

Another week, another revelation about Jeremy Corbyn’s links with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers… and yet more silence from Labour leaders, party members and Corbyn’s usually highly-vocal supporters.

As a British Jew, and someone who believes Corbyn’s longtime association with known Jew-haters is disturbing and unacceptable, I find the lack of public outrage deeply worrying.

There’s no doubt in my mind that if Theresa May had been found to be a member of a private Facebook group where people casually used the ‘N’ word, openly spouted scientific racism as fact, and celebrated KKK leaders as visionaries, it would be the front page of every newspaper, the streets would be filled with demonstrators, and she’d be out of Number 10 quicker than she could say, ‘strong and stable’. And rightly so.

And yet last week, when it was revealed that until 2015 Jeremy Corbyn was a member of the Facebook group Palestine Live (which is listed on Facebook as ‘secret’, meaning you can only find it if you’re invited to join it by someone with permission to invite new members) – where Jews are commonly referred to as ‘JewNazis’, ‘Zionazis’ and ‘Zios’, where Holocaust deniers openly share their sick, twisted theories, where conspiracy theories about global Jewish networks (such as the fictitious ‘Elders of Zion’) are discussed as fact, where memes featuring Nazi-style caricatures of Jews receive hundreds of likes, and anti-Semitic speakers are lauded as heroes – there was mass silence.

The anti-Semitism on this group is so utterly vile and filled with hate, reading it made me feel physically sick. If you think I’m exaggerating, I urge you to have a look on David Collier’s blog for yourself.

Despite the extreme nature of the content in this Facebook group (and the fact that the Labour have suspended a number of members for their involvement in it), Corbyn has somehow managed to escape unscathed, again.

Cleverly, Corbyn’s not said much on the matter. In one of his few statements, to the Press Association, he simply feigned ignorance, saying: ‘I have never trawled through the whole group. I have never read all the messages on it. I have removed myself from it,’ before adding, ‘Obviously, any anti-Semitic comment is wrong. Any anti-Semitism in any form is wrong.’

Although the vast majority of the UK population seem to be satisfied with his simple denial and paint-by-numbers rebuke of anti-Semitism, I’m not, and I’m not alone.

A statement by the respected parliamentary group, Labour Friends of Israel, read: ‘That Jeremy Corbyn was a member of a Facebook group frequented by anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and Israel-hating conspiracy theorists is both appalling and utterly unsurprising.

We have long known about the kind of company that he keeps and this is simply further confirmation of a deeply disturbing pattern of behaviour.

‘Mr Corbyn has repeatedly failed to apologise to the Jewish community and to recognise the hurt caused by his past actions and associations. Now would be a good time for him to do so.’ Not that my personal political beliefs should matter – for this is a conversation about anti-Semitism, pure and simple – but in the nature of transparency (and the hope that this piece won’t simply be dismissed as the angry rants of a rampant Tory), I’m going to say here and now that I don’t have any allegiances to any political party.

In the past I’ve voted Labour, Conservative, Green, and even, once, Lib Dem. I consider each vote separately – researching the candidates and issues – in the aim of making a balanced and personal voting decision based on fact and not emotion.

But while we’re talking about my personal politics, I’ll admit that I found the last election incredibly stressful and upsetting.

Because like many other members of the Anglo-Jewish community (including many long-time Labour members) – I felt that I simply couldn’t support, or vote for, the party in its current state. Which is a position none of us ever imagined we’d be in.

I mean – don’t you think it’s terrifying that in Britain in 2018, Jews feel that they can’t vote for a major political party because they believe there’s overwhelming evidence that the party’s leader is an anti-Semite? I certainly do.

And if you do too, please shout about it. I, and the rest of the Jewish community, would be incredibly grateful, because right now we feel very alone, and that’s a very scary place to be.

Aside from the fact this is even happening, I’ve found the sheer unwillingness of Corbyn’s supporters to objectively look at the facts and even consider that their dear leader might hold anti-Semitic views, both frustrating and immature.

Even more shocking are the Labour voters who’ve told me that even if Corbyn holds anti-Semitic beliefs, they’re willing to overlook this inconvenient fact for the greater good (i.e. a fairer society. Oh, the irony!). Then there are the people who tell me that Corbyn and his pals aren’t anti-Semitic – they’re just anti-Israel.

Aside from the fact that this simply isn’t true (which I think is now proven by the outright Jew-hate shown in that Facebook group), the sad truth is, the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 created a handy smoke screen for anti-Semites to hide behind. Anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli sentiments are now widely conflated (e.g. all Jews, regardless of their politics or feelings towards Israel, are now referred to as ‘Zios’).

This relationship was recognised as far back as 1960s. In fact, in 1973 – around the same time that Corbyn was forming his political beliefs – Abba Eban, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, wrote: ‘[R]ecently we have witnessed the rise of the new left which identifies Israel with the establishment, with acquisition, with smug satisfaction, with, in fact, all the basic enemies … Let there be no mistake: the new left is the author and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism.’

More recently, Brendan Simms – Professor of the History of International Relations at Cambridge University – wrote this fantastic piece for the Evening Standard explaining the new political anti-Semitism far better than I ever could.

Look, I’m not saying Corbyn wants all Jews dead, but I am saying, as a matter of fact, that he associates with people who do, and that his feelings towards Jews are not 100% positive or neutral.

And if you’re standing by, silent, waiting for the storm to blow over so you can go back to blindly singing his praises, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself how YOU really feel about Jews. Scary, I know.
 
Daily Mail Online (I don't read it, someone else has flagged it up) has an article calling Corbyn a traitor for asking for emphatic evidence that the attack was carried out by Russia

Thats the whole point though. Our relevant agencies have identified & clarified what they believe has happened. Yet that's not good enough for JC.

So effectively, he's telling a field of specialists & experts, no.... Wait, OUR OWN field of specialists & experts, that he doesn't have faith in them, their procedures & their professional observations.

And you can't see anything wrong with that?

The sad truth for the Corbynites is that this whole saga, has made your man look like the kid in the playground who gets bullied a lot, but is too scared and/or too ignorant on how to stand up for himself, so he zones out, & pretends it's not happening, as it's far easier than facing reality.
 
Thats the whole point though. Our relevant agencies have identified & clarified what they believe has happened. Yet that's not good enough for JC.

So effectively, he's telling a field of specialists & experts, no.... Wait, OUR OWN field of specialists & experts, that he doesn't have faith in them, their procedures & their professional observations.

And you can't see anything wrong with that?

The sad truth for the Corbynites is that this whole saga, has made your man look like the kid in the playground who gets bullied a lot, but is too scared and/or too ignorant on how to stand up for himself, so he zones out, & pretends it's not happening, as it's far easier than facing reality.
The experts are saying what they believe has happened, not what they know has happened. He looked like the kid in the playground when we were told Iraq had WMDs too - and look how that panned out.

All he is saying was don't rush to conclusions. Historically when he has said that in the past he has turned out to be right.
 
What do those, including the Tory Government who were happy to take money of these ex-pat Russian, want? We won't win any kind of war with Russia, conventional or nuclear - and nuclear means the end of absolutely everything and everyone.
 
What do those, including the Tory Government who were happy to take money of these ex-pat Russian, want? We won't win any kind of war with Russia, conventional or nuclear - and nuclear means the end of absolutely everything and everyone.

Utter scaremongering. Oh and Labour can hardly hold their hands up and say nothing from Russia has ever gone in their coffers.
 
Utter scaremongering. Oh and Labour can hardly hold their hands up and say nothing from Russia has ever gone in their coffers.

You haven't answered the question as usual. What is it that you want from all this? Even if Putin puts his hands up and accepts liability then what? Which, of course he won't.

And I very much doubt that the current Labour party would be given support from those billionaires living here in the UK. New Labour, very definitely, but there was only a very thin almost non-existant line between Blair/Brown & the Tories.
 
The experts are saying what they believe has happened, not what they know has happened

So, to clarify, do you doubt what these experts have claimed? I mean, it's either the case that they're right or they're wrong, and/or they can be trusted or they can't be trusted. I don't see any possible grey area here.

He looked like the kid in the playground when we were told Iraq had WMDs too - and look how that panned out.

All he is saying was don't rush to conclusions. Historically when he has said that in the past he has turned out to be right.

Ahh yes, the WMD claims. Another Labour leader who couldn't be trusted. Anyway, the difference with that is Blair was in Bush's pocket & had already agreed to back him regardless
 
So, to clarify, do you doubt what these experts have claimed? I mean, it's either the case that they're right or they're wrong, and/or they can be trusted or they can't be trusted. I don't see any possible grey area here.



Ahh yes, the WMD claims. Another Labour leader who couldn't be trusted. Anyway, the difference with that is Blair was in Bush's pocket & had already agreed to back him regardless
I believe that they believe that it was on Putin's instructions.

So Blair couldn't be trusted because he went along with the security assessment and Corbyn can't be trusted because he is more cautious about the security assessments - got you.
 
In the meantime it's good to see our allies have supported us, even if the leader of the opposition can't.
 
Back
Top