The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

AS is directlly affecting Labour, and Jeremy  should control that.

I know this point is boring, but no leader is ever going to be able to 'control' what more than 500,000 people can write on their Facebook walls.

There can be a disciplinary process, and there is, but even then, 'Jeremy' shouldn't control that personally.

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, colhint said:

Thing is though it's not just on here, it's been sort of accepted in debate now. You must have heard racism is a big part of the debate, All racists voted leave, they don't like foreigners etc. It's been part of the norm now. It's a bit like this here  and now.  It's been allowed to be accepted.  This is similar to Corbyn and AS.  Because he hasn't dealt with it, and there have been some Labour heavyweights who have been accused,  he should have realised it would be part of the norm. With the Brexit debate, no one controls it,  people can accuse 1000's of people as being racists, not the Tories fault or Labour, but AS is directlly affecting Labour, and Jeremy  should control that.

Well, I know the BBC vox pops like to linger on the good people of the mid afternoon cafe and they let the camera run long enough for something racist to come out. i think I’ve seen a lot of people try to explain the difference between all racists voted leave not all leave voters were racists.

i don’t think its ‘accepted’, I know leave voters, some of them appear quite reasonable, some of them have felt brave enough to start tweeting shit about refugees. I can’t think of a remainder I know that has done that.

Totally agree Corbyn hasn’t dealt with it, he appears incapable of thinking on his feet and incapable of giving an answer that kills off that line of attack. It’s just so easy to stop it, his stubbornness on not closing it down is the one seed of doubt I have and why I’ve asked a few times if anyone actually has any genuine evidence against him. I guess that seed of doubt is all the Rabbi is looking for, to tilt me away from Labour and let the openly racist Johnsonback in. Corbyn is an awful leader, the proof is in the polls, a fairly adequate labour leader would be picking curtains for No 10 by now. For me, if i have to eat a shit sandwich, Corbyn is a slightly smaller shit sandwich than Johnson and the gang of toff con men tucked in behind him.

 

[markavfc40]

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I know this point is boring, but no leader is ever going to be able to 'control' what more than 500,000 people can write on their Facebook walls.

There can be a disciplinary process, and there is, but even then, 'Jeremy' shouldn't control that personally.

The cases of anti semitism within Labour accont for around 0.05% of its membership. Obviously one case is one too many but I do feel this is being used as a disproportionate stick to beat down Corbyn and attack him personally.

[colhint]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I know this point is boring, but no leader is ever going to be able to 'control' what more than 500,000 people can write on their Facebook walls.

There can be a disciplinary process, and there is, but even then, 'Jeremy' shouldn't control that personally.

Come on Its Ken Livingstone, he resigned before they could do anything and that was a few years later. Chris Williamson reinstated then fired a day or so after,  Keith Vaz was part of the process, and claimed he knew nothing about as he was a last minute stand in, then claimed because he was on medication made the wrong decision. Jewish MP's resigning. Its not the half a million, it's people at the top he should be dealing with.

[HanoiVillan]

37 minutes ago, snowychap said:

If they're speaking in a personal capacity then they are duty bound to do that, surely?

If they are speaking in their position within an organisation (the CofE, the CBI, the Muslim Council of Britain, The Satanists of the Lower Forest of Dean, &c.) then they speak as that. To say that they shouldn't 'politicise' their group implies that their group shouldn't have a place, or a representation, politically.

I'm not defending religion, just to be clear; I'm defending the right of people to comment about politics.

Yes, I broadly agree. People should be able to voice their opinions, and just because I don't like what they say doesn't mean they shouldn't say it (or that it isn't news).

A separate question can probably be asked about how certain groups come to be seen as 'representative' of a particular religion though, and to what extent they should be understood to be 'speaking for their religion'.

[Xann]

19 minutes ago, Awol said:

I’d love to hear suggestions other than new technology for limiting the rapid emissions growth of China, India and the Middle East, though. Do you have any? 

Oh feck Awol, to answer that is an essay, possibly a degree?

 

As a succinct response, because it isn't answering that question directly. 

We're in the position you describe because large energy companies decided decades ago to corner a market.

Large finance is eyeing Brexit as an opportunity to corner a market .

Neither give a toss. They're not about the greater good. Toxic to society and planet.

Don't hand them the keys.

 

There's already a raft of major World leaders shamelessly enriching themselves personally and completely on board with abusing state machinery.

They're words removed.

We got one we didn't vote for.

The Boris camp is pissing about with factual broadcasting. 

Get rid.

The soppy beardy word removed clearly won't turn on the Jewish community at home. 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, colhint said:

Come on Its Ken Livingstone, he resigned before they could do anything and that was a few years later. Chris Williamson reinstated then fired a day or so after,  Keith Vaz was part of the process, and claimed he knew nothing about as he was a last minute stand in, then claimed because he was on medication made the wrong decision. Jewish MP's resigning. Its not the half a million, it's people at the top he should be dealing with.

Sorry, I assumed from your use of the present continuous tense in your post that you were talking about now, rather than in the past. FWIW I agree that Livingstone and Williamson are wrong'uns who should have been removed faster, but they're gone now and the processes have changed since then.

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, colhint said:

Come on Its Ken Livingstone, he resigned before they could do anything and that was a few years later. Chris Williamson reinstated then fired a day or so after,  Keith Vaz was part of the process, and claimed he knew nothing about as he was a last minute stand in, then claimed because he was on medication made the wrong decision. Jewish MP's resigning. Its not the half a million, it's people at the top he should be dealing with.

Can you imagine the high pitched screaming if Corbyn had a column in a newspaper where he described Jewish people like Johnson has described black people and Muslims?

The police would have been involved.

 

[Risso]

What has he said about black people that would cause the police to be called?

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

A separate question can probably be asked about how certain groups come to be seen as 'representative' of a particular religion though, and to what extent they should be understood to be 'speaking for their religion'.

As much as anyone at the pinnacle of any organisation is understood to be.

Whether that's the leader of the Tory party, the Leader of the Labour party, the head of the CBI, the Chief Constable of the West Mercia Police, the Chief Executive of the NHS, &c.

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, snowychap said:

As much as anyone at the pinnacle of any organisation is understood to be.

Whether that's the leader of the Tory party, the Leader of the Labour party, the head of the CBI, the Chief Constable of the West Mercia Police, the Chief Executive of the NHS, &c.

Speaking on behalf of the organisation, sure, but there's a big leap between that and speaking on behalf of all Hindus in the UK, and I don't think that difference is being adequately noted in the media (and obviously not by the organisation themselves, who have every reason to big themselves up).

[colhint]

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Can you imagine the high pitched screaming if Corbyn had a column in a newspaper where he described Jewish people like Johnson has described black people and Muslims?

The police would have been involved.

 

You said he was awful a few posts ago, so why are you defending him so much on this issue? 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Speaking on behalf of the organisation, sure, but there's a big leap between that and speaking on behalf of all Hindus in the UK, and I don't think that difference is being adequately noted in the media (and obviously not by the organisation themselves, who have every reason to big themselves up).

Oh, that's an absolutely fair point.

The assumption by those at the top of the pyramid that they speak for absolutely everyone below themselves should never be just accepted.

Edited November 26, 2019 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, Risso said:

What has he said about black people that would cause the police to be called?

Hmmm you’ve slightly tweeted my statement, I’ve said if Corbyn wrote in similar graphic detail describing Jews, the police would be called.

For instance, literally the first two I found on a google, imagine a Corbyn written piece that included the Jewish equivalent of:

Quote

the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies

Quote

Boris Johnson has defended his infamous description of black people in Africa bearing “watermelon smiles

Quote

Writing about a prospective trip by Mr Blair to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr Johnson stated: “No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.”

 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Hmmm you’ve slightly tweeted my statement, I’ve said if Corbyn wrote in similar graphic detail describing Jews, the police would be called.

For instance, literally the first two I found on a google, imagine a Corbyn written piece that included the Jewish equivalent of:

 

Johnson is a racist t**t and has written things as a journalist that would earn him a smack in the chops outside his rarified social circle. No doubt. 

Corbyn not only voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but two weeks after the IRA attempted to murder the British government in Brighton (killing 5, injuring 34) he invited two convicted IRA terrorists to Westminster - gloating, not ‘peacemaking’.

You may disagree, but I don’t think  they’re comparable levels of fuckwittery for someone aiming to be PM of the UK - and one of them will win. 

 

[Risso]

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Hmmm you’ve slightly tweeted my statement, I’ve said if Corbyn wrote in similar graphic detail describing Jews, the police would be called.

For instance, literally the first two I found on a google, imagine a Corbyn written piece that included the Jewish equivalent of:

 

You don't think the watermelon smiles bit was him attempting to satirise Blair's attitudes to visiting the colonies?  Not the cleverest or most subtle way of making the point, but he's clearly not just calling black people names to be racist.

[Awol]

31 minutes ago, Xann said:

Oh feck Awol, to answer that is an essay, possibly a degree?

Not really, only a cold assessment of the facts. The world isn’t going to bend to Greta Thunberg’s will. The UK can’t fix it alone, however noble the ambition. That being the case we need to invest hugely in both domestic mitigation and tech’ development. 

The soppy beardy word removed clearly won't turn on the Jewish community at home.

The wider British-Jewish community clearly aren’t buying that. Given the fact he didn’t tighten up Labour’s approach to anti-Semitism until this summer, I don’t blame them. 

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, Risso said:

You don't think the watermelon smiles bit was him attempting to satirise Blair's attitudes to visiting the colonies?  Not the cleverest or most subtle way of making the point, but he's clearly not just calling black people names to be racist.

You’re still looking at it the wrong way. People shrugged it off from Johnson they explained away that he’s a blundering dick attempting satire but didn’t get the quality of education to quite manage it.

Now, my point, imagine a Corbyn article where he uses the equivalent ‘satire’ about Jewishness.

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Corbyn not only voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement

As did the following Tories (couldn't be arsed to go through the other column so there may well be a fair few more):

Julian Amery; Sir John Biggs-Davison; Michael Brown; John Browne; Peter Bruinvels; Nick Budgen; Terry Dicks; Den Dover; Sir John Farr; Ian Gow; Trevor Skeet; Ivor Stanbrook; Bill Walker.

 

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

As did the following Tories (couldn't be arsed to go through the other column so there may well be a fair few more):

Julian Amery; Sir John Biggs-Davison; Michael Brown; John Browne; Peter Bruinvels; Nick Budgen; Terry Dicks; Den Dover; Sir John Farr; Ian Gow; Trevor Skeet; Ivor Stanbrook; Bill Walker.

 

So they were words removed too. What about inviting terrorists from said organisation to parliament 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing? Actions of a future PM, or an ally of the IRA?