RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:What's the betting that the Tory party are behind the fake Corbyn tweet?

?????

Did he apologise for being a racist and then claim it wasn't him?

The tweet said that "A man was murdered by the British Police"

and the Mail readers have been sending it around as if it's possibly truth, because they're gullible shits.

Right. That’s it. Democracy is done. When the Lib Dems are you to this sort of s**t we might as well all give up:

I stopped reading at the Y-axes part

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. I believe that an unnamed prick has said it. How that means the Conservatives as a party are all the same is quite the leap. Just because he said we doesn’t mean the party as a whole is like him. You’ve taken the words of one idiot and bracketed an entire party. From here on in, can I take the words of anyone associated to the Labour Party and then state the party as a whole are the same or believe the same?
Your silence on the anti-semitism stuff says a lot. It’s ok to criticise your own party, they haven’t control of your internet.....yet.

Ok, so what did you mean by "bang to rights"? What exactly did you concede at that point?

Let me clarify my language. When I said "the conservatives are really like this", I should have said "the people currently running the conservative party are really like this". Apologies if this caused offence.

I didn't realise you were asking me something about anti-semitism - I thought you were being rhetorical. What do you want to know?

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ate-debate

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Ok, so what did you mean by "bang to rights"? What exactly did you concede at that point?

Let me clarify my language. When I said "the conservatives are really like this", I should have said "the people currently running the conservative party are really like this". Apologies if this caused offence.

I didn't realise you were asking me something about anti-semitism - I thought you were being rhetorical. What do you want to know?

It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

That link states the party will be writing to Ofcom to ask about C4’s impartiality. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s perfectly allowable and not the same as the Party confirming it will look into C4’s licence.

I’ve already said I believe the story, which is a step beyond most Corbynistas who will start moaning about media bias, fake news etc. I do believe it’s probably someone high up in the party, otherwise why report it, but it’s not a party position and it’s not indicative of the party as a whole, which is how you’ve sought to portray it. How you’ve got to the point that you think I’ve denied it’s even true is beyond me. I’ve written “I totally agree that some prick has said it”. Not sure how I could be any clearer. I even gave you an example you should be able to relate to - there are anti-semites in the Labour Party but that’s doesn’t make the Labour Party anti-Semitic. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I’m struggling to see how you can’t understand the difference between me thinking one, high up member of the party has gone rogue - I’ve said it’s worrying and dangerous in case you don’t think I’m believe it’s serious - but not think it’s indicative of the party as a whole. After all, it’s ‘source’, single not plural.
Tbh, it’s not that much worse than leader of the Labour Party being on record as saying the Director General of the BBC has a pro-Israel agenda.

I think it’s very indicative that I’m happy to come on here and criticise my own party or leader but you seem to find it impossible to do the same, beyond alluding to JC being a poor leader.
To be honest, based on the above para, this discussion is boring. I’m happy to discuss politics if people are objective, as far as political leanings allow, but this is yet another case of Boris and Cons all bad, JC and Labour beyond reproach. So, I’ll leave it here.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It was a bit tongue in cheek. Hence me calling you ‘guv’. I totally agree that some prick has said it but it’s hardly party policy and, I’d hope, it’s certainly not the position of the majority of the party. Happy to concede it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to say, as I’ve already said on here today. I’m not happy to concede that the words of one idiot paints an entire party. Just as I wouldn’t paint the Labour Party as anti-Semitic due there being a number of anti-semites in the party.

Quite how the words of one unnamed man prove the Conservatives, current leadership group or wider, are ‘like that’, is beyond me.

I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism.

Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

That link states the party will be writing to Ofcom to ask about C4’s impartiality. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s perfectly allowable and not the same as the Party confirming it will look into C4’s licence.

I’ve already said I believe the story, which is a step beyond most Corbynistas who will start moaning about media bias, fake news etc. I do believe it’s probably someone high up in the party, otherwise why report it, but it’s not a party position and it’s not indicative of the party as a whole, which is how you’ve sought to portray it. How you’ve got to the point that you think I’ve denied it’s even true is beyond me. I’ve written “I totally agree that some prick has said it”. Not sure how I could be any clearer. I even gave you an example you should be able to relate to - there are anti-semites in the Labour Party but that’s doesn’t make the Labour Party anti-Semitic. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I’m struggling to see how you can’t understand the difference between me thinking one, high up member of the party has gone rogue - I’ve said it’s worrying and dangerous in case you don’t think I’m believe it’s serious - but not think it’s indicative of the party as a whole. After all, it’s ‘source’, single not plural.
Tbh, it’s not that much worse than leader of the Labour Party being on record as saying the Director General of the BBC has a pro-Israel agenda.

I think it’s very indicative that I’m happy to come on here and criticise my own party or leader but you seem to find it impossible to do the same, beyond alluding to JC being a poor leader.
To be honest, based on the above para, this discussion is boring. I’m happy to discuss politics if people are objective, as far as political leanings allow, but this is yet another case of Boris and Cons all bad, JC and Labour beyond reproach. So, I’ll leave it here.

This is the start of the article linked (it's explicitly about reviewing the remit; the letter to Ofcom is later in the article):

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Of course just saying that "some prick said it" is completely different from saying this. You are actually claiming that this "source" has gone rogue?

This is someone speaking on behalf of the Conservative party (most likely a press officer). This is the party's position - if not, the tories should correct it immediately.


You said "I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism." That sounds too much like a slur on my character to leave there. I want you to clarify the remark.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Ok, so you basically don't believe the story about the conservative party source saying “If we are re-elected we will have to review Channel 4’s Public Services Broadcasting obligations." It was some rogue posing as a source, or a source going off message, or perhaps completely made up?

Please tell me what you think you know about my stance on anti-Semitism.

That link states the party will be writing to Ofcom to ask about C4’s impartiality. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s perfectly allowable and not the same as the Party confirming it will look into C4’s licence.

I’ve already said I believe the story, which is a step beyond most Corbynistas who will start moaning about media bias, fake news etc. I do believe it’s probably someone high up in the party, otherwise why report it, but it’s not a party position and it’s not indicative of the party as a whole, which is how you’ve sought to portray it. How you’ve got to the point that you think I’ve denied it’s even true is beyond me. I’ve written “I totally agree that some prick has said it”. Not sure how I could be any clearer. I even gave you an example you should be able to relate to - there are anti-semites in the Labour Party but that’s doesn’t make the Labour Party anti-Semitic. I honestly don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

I’m struggling to see how you can’t understand the difference between me thinking one, high up member of the party has gone rogue - I’ve said it’s worrying and dangerous in case you don’t think I’m believe it’s serious - but not think it’s indicative of the party as a whole. After all, it’s ‘source’, single not plural.
Tbh, it’s not that much worse than leader of the Labour Party being on record as saying the Director General of the BBC has a pro-Israel agenda.

I think it’s very indicative that I’m happy to come on here and criticise my own party or leader but you seem to find it impossible to do the same, beyond alluding to JC being a poor leader.
To be honest, based on the above para, this discussion is boring. I’m happy to discuss politics if people are objective, as far as political leanings allow, but this is yet another case of Boris and Cons all bad, JC and Labour beyond reproach. So, I’ll leave it here.

This is the start of the article linked (it's explicitly about reviewing the remit; the letter to Ofcom is later in the article):

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Of course just saying that "some prick said it" is completely different from saying this. You are actually claiming that this "source" has gone rogue?

This is someone speaking on behalf of the Conservative party (most likely a press officer). This is the party's position - if not, the tories should correct it immediately.


You said "I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism." That sounds too much like a slur on my character to leave there. I want you to clarify the remark.

This is my last response, I really have better things to do.

To clarify. If that is the official party position I will be contacting my MP, who is in the cabinet so I’d hope would have some sway, but I’ve not seen anything other than the ‘source’ from Buzzfeed. I have been vociferous in my defence of free speech elsewhere on this site, as I’m sure the likes of Puja will confirm, and hold my own party to the same standards. If we’re going down this route, I’ll assume that as Corbyn refuses to apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitic problems in the Labour Party, the party’s position, or at least that of the current leadership, is that they don’t feel there is anything worth apologising for; which should be a huge worry.

If you require clarity from some random bloke on the internet:
It’s not a slur on you. I don’t think your anti-Semitic. You just seem to want to avoid even discussing it with regards the Labour Party.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: This is the start of the article linked (it's explicitly about reviewing the remit; the letter to Ofcom is later in the article):

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Of course just saying that "some prick said it" is completely different from saying this. You are actually claiming that this "source" has gone rogue?

This is someone speaking on behalf of the Conservative party (most likely a press officer). This is the party's position - if not, the tories should correct it immediately.


You said "I know everything I need to know about your stance on anti-semitism." That sounds too much like a slur on my character to leave there. I want you to clarify the remark.

This is my last response, I really have better things to do.

To clarify. If that is the official party position I will be contacting my MP, who is in the cabinet so I’d hope would have some sway, but I’ve not seen anything other than the ‘source’ from Buzzfeed. I have been vociferous in my defence of free speech elsewhere on this site, as I’m sure the likes of Puja will confirm, and hold my own party to the same standards. If we’re going down this route, I’ll assume that as Corbyn refuses to apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitic problems in the Labour Party, the party’s position, or at least that of the current leadership, is that they don’t feel there is anything worth apologising for; which should be a huge worry.

If you require clarity from some random bloke on the internet:
It’s not a slur on you. I don’t think your anti-Semitic. You just seem to want to avoid even discussing it with regards the Labour Party.

Please do confirm it with your MP.

Corbyn has apologised to the Jewish community several times eg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... -189986489
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43535710

I'm happy to discuss anti-Semitism in the Labour party if you have any questions about it (although I only know what I read about it - I'm not a member of Labour).

Out of interest - how are we interpretting May and Johnson's involvement with the Nancy Astor statue? Pro-Women? Pro-Nazi? Anti-Semite?

Equally, one I've only recently had drawn to my attention - how do we interpret Corbyn's "IRA sympathiser" tag because he felt that dialogue with Sinn Fein was a good thing a few years earlier than government policy; counterpointed against Maria Gatland (AKA Maria McGuire), Tory counsellor, and ex-member of IRA leadership?

Oh, and these are genuine questions - I'm genuiney unsure how I feel aobut the Nancy Astor thing; and simply don't know enough about Maria Gatland (though I always felt that criticising Corbyn for being right about Sinn Fein was... a little odd)

Nancy Astor was the first female to sit in the Commons so her having a statue or two seems eminently reasonable.

I've never heard anyone say Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser just because he wanted dialogue. Typically people call him a sympathiser because he sympathises with their aims as enemies of Imperial Britain, and whilst a good number might have issue with the idea of empire building any attack on Imperial Britain tends to be also an attack on Britain, and without too much surprise people don't like that

What can Labour give away next? Its certainly working as a strategy!

Digby wrote:Nancy Astor was the first female to sit in the Commons so her having a statue or two seems eminently reasonable.

I've never heard anyone say Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser just because he wanted dialogue. Typically people call him a sympathiser because he sympathises with their aims as enemies of Imperial Britain, and whilst a good number might have issue with the idea of empire building any attack on Imperial Britain tends to be also an attack on Britain, and without too much surprise people don't like that

Would rather celebrate Markievicz who was the first woman MP. Especially given Astor's virulent antisemitism.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Nancy Astor was the first female to sit in the Commons so her having a statue or two seems eminently reasonable.

I've never heard anyone say Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser just because he wanted dialogue. Typically people call him a sympathiser because he sympathises with their aims as enemies of Imperial Britain, and whilst a good number might have issue with the idea of empire building any attack on Imperial Britain tends to be also an attack on Britain, and without too much surprise people don't like that

Would rather celebrate Markievicz who was the first woman MP. Especially given Astor's virulent antisemitism.

I'm cautious about using the word celebrate, but I don't think you have to celebrate someone to erect a statue. Both Markievicz and Astor would have those who would stand aghast at some of their practices, but both were the first in their way, and that does attract notice, give 'em both statues seems an easy out

Digby wrote:Nancy Astor was the first female to sit in the Commons so her having a statue or two seems eminently reasonable.

I've never heard anyone say Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser just because he wanted dialogue. Typically people call him a sympathiser because he sympathises with their aims as enemies of Imperial Britain, and whilst a good number might have issue with the idea of empire building any attack on Imperial Britain tends to be also an attack on Britain, and without too much surprise people don't like that

Encouraging dialogue amongst opposing factions is admirable. Choosing whom to have dialogue with is difficult and picking extremists on one side exclusively buggers up your objective and leads to very reasonable accusations of supporting terrorism.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:Nancy Astor was the first female to sit in the Commons so her having a statue or two seems eminently reasonable.

I've never heard anyone say Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser just because he wanted dialogue. Typically people call him a sympathiser because he sympathises with their aims as enemies of Imperial Britain, and whilst a good number might have issue with the idea of empire building any attack on Imperial Britain tends to be also an attack on Britain, and without too much surprise people don't like that

Would rather celebrate Markievicz who was the first woman MP. Especially given Astor's virulent antisemitism.

I'm cautious about using the word celebrate, but I don't think you have to celebrate someone to erect a statue. Both Markievicz and Astor would have those who would stand aghast at some of their practices, but both were the first in their way, and that does attract notice, give 'em both statues seems an easy out

And how far do we allow politics of today affect our recognition of the past?

I’m not sure about the Astor monument either for the record but I prefer to view historical figures in the context of their time. At that time Britain was far more anti-Semitic than it is today (and racist in general).

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Would rather celebrate Markievicz who was the first woman MP. Especially given Astor's virulent antisemitism.

I'm cautious about using the word celebrate, but I don't think you have to celebrate someone to erect a statue. Both Markievicz and Astor would have those who would stand aghast at some of their practices, but both were the first in their way, and that does attract notice, give 'em both statues seems an easy out

And how far do we allow politics of today affect our recognition of the past?

I’m not sure about the Astor monument either for the record but I prefer to view historical figures in the context of their time. At that time Britain was far more anti-Semitic than it is today (and racist in general).

I love this alleged exchange:

Lady Astor said to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea," to which he responded, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

Very tough to know who to erect statues to. But as Markievicz was actually the first female MP, I think this really qualifies her better (purely in terms of achievement as a woman). This feels a bit like the fuss over Tim Peake, who I imagine most random people would say was the first Brit in space.....

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm cautious about using the word celebrate, but I don't think you have to celebrate someone to erect a statue. Both Markievicz and Astor would have those who would stand aghast at some of their practices, but both were the first in their way, and that does attract notice, give 'em both statues seems an easy out

And how far do we allow politics of today affect our recognition of the past?

I’m not sure about the Astor monument either for the record but I prefer to view historical figures in the context of their time. At that time Britain was far more anti-Semitic than it is today (and racist in general).

I love this alleged exchange:

Lady Astor said to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea," to which he responded, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

Very tough to know who to erect statues to. But as Markievicz was actually the first female MP, I think this really qualifies her better (purely in terms of achievement as a woman). This feels a bit like the fuss over Tim Peake, who I imagine most random people would say was the first Brit in space.....

Again just do both and you remove the need for an argument.

Because there is the obvious problem with Markievicz that she's akin to the first person who swam the Channel, only she refused to go into the water. Certainly she was the first women who won a constituency election, but by dint of refusing to actually serve she wasn't in many ways that count the first female MP, because she wasn't an MP.

Mind I don't get why statues must be perceived as having only positive inferences in a current social environment, our history is our history, they both have significant stories, build the statues and encourage discussion on their stories that allow for coverage of the good and the bad.

Well, at least no-one ever accused Pasty Cockwomble of having any morality, or love of accountability: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... s-21024829

Boris Johnson abruptly ends press conference after being questioned about NHS
It came just minutes after the Donald Trump cancelled his press conference - as the row over NHS drug prices escalated

Boris Johnson abruptly shut down a press conference after being asked if he had spoken to Donald Trump about ruling the NHS out of a future US/UK trade deal.

Asked by the Independent if he had made it "crystal clear" to Donald Trump that "neither the NHS or pharmaceuticals" should be part of future trade negotiations, the PM threw a bit of a huff and said he wouldn't answer any more questions.

Article Continues...

I'm sorry, but we've reached the stage where any vote for the conservatives is a vote in favour of moral bankruptcy and against the interests of 99.9% of the country

Given the above and Jewish Labour Movement’s submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it looks we’re all going to have to vote Lib Dem.

Mellsblue wrote:Given the above and Jewish Labour Movement’s submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it looks we’re all going to have to vote Lib Dem.

Only if you think a problem with a tiny minority of Labour members - which is being rooted out - is comparable with the Tory party's (implicit) policy on the NHS.

A minority of the Labour Party membership which are far too close to its current leader who has done very little to root it out, at least according to the 50+ Labour whistleblowers who have submitted evidence.

The leadership of neither party is fit to govern. Sadly a got for the Lib Dem’s is seen as a wasted vote, although that’s who I will be voting for.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm cautious about using the word celebrate, but I don't think you have to celebrate someone to erect a statue. Both Markievicz and Astor would have those who would stand aghast at some of their practices, but both were the first in their way, and that does attract notice, give 'em both statues seems an easy out

And how far do we allow politics of today affect our recognition of the past?

I’m not sure about the Astor monument either for the record but I prefer to view historical figures in the context of their time. At that time Britain was far more anti-Semitic than it is today (and racist in general).

I love this alleged exchange:

Lady Astor said to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea," to which he responded, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

Very tough to know who to erect statues to. But as Markievicz was actually the first female MP, I think this really qualifies her better (purely in terms of achievement as a woman). This feels a bit like the fuss over Tim Peake, who I imagine most random people would say was the first Brit in space.....

That had always made me chuckle.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Given the above and Jewish Labour Movement’s submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it looks we’re all going to have to vote Lib Dem.

Only if you think a problem with a tiny minority of Labour members - which is being rooted out - is comparable with the Tory party's (implicit) policy on the NHS.

The Foreward suggests it a little more serious than that:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Given the above and Jewish Labour Movement’s submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it looks we’re all going to have to vote Lib Dem.

Only if you think a problem with a tiny minority of Labour members - which is being rooted out - is comparable with the Tory party's (implicit) policy on the NHS.

The Foreward suggests it a little more serious than that:

That's the view of the JLM. We'll see what the view of the commission is.

To be honest, the idea that a long time campaigner for minority rights would persecute a minority group in the UK seems ridiculous to me. Show me the evidence of anti-jewish thought in Corbyn's words. Whereas we have all seen the racist, homophobic, and anti-islamic thought in Johnson's words. There's no comparison for me.

Okay. There's apparently less of a problem with the Lib Dems. But that's a different point. They're not going to form a government. They are not an option (except from a tactical voting perspective). The only serious decision is whether you want a Johnson government or a Corbyn one (and then a sub-decision based in tactical voting in your constituency).

Yep. Even the Lib Dems seem to have accepted they appeal to absolutely nobody except in the case of preventing a close labour/conservative seat.

Jo Swinson is a fucking scumbag.