Deleted User wrote: » That anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Anyone who knows anything about Singapore knows how successful that tiny country has been. What you're doing is just as absurd as me quoting a millionaire from Zimbabwe and then assuming that somehow Zimbabwe is a successful country for all. If I delivered an anecdote like that, you'd be the first down my throat.
schmittel wrote: » I am not too sure of what the root cause of the row is so have no idea if it would disappear the moment Corbyn stood down. I daresay the suspicion of antisemitism would reduce if he someone replaced him and made tackling the accusations a key platform. As to Austin's comments, yes they're not new, but definitely newsworthy in an election campaign on the same day the Jewish Chronicle publishes a front page editorial pleading to non Jewish people:https://www.thejc.com/comment/leaders/to-all-our-fellow-british-citizens-1.491812
Enzokk wrote: » There is a problem in the UK of Antisemitism. It is not confined to the Labour Party just as Islamophobia isn't confined to the Tories only. I think you would find those that have Antisemitic views probably has Islamophobic views as well. So the choices comes down to voting for the party who's leader is a probable Anti-Semite or a party who's leader is a racist and Islamophobe. Neither party has dealt with the problems satisfactorily and should claim the moral high ground above the other.
schmittel wrote: » Or vote Lib Dem.
schmittel wrote: » that front page in full:
SeaBreezes wrote: » In the article they say he is anti Zionist therefore anti-Jew.. That's just ridiculous many Jewish people are anti Zionist. It's like saying disagreeing with the Irish gov policies makes you anti catholic.What has he said/done exactly to be called an anti-Seminte? Genuinely curious.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » It appears to be acceptable to accuse anyone who diagrees with the actions of the Israeli state an anti-semite
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Yep, which is why the vast majority of screaming about “anti - semitism” is nonsense.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Great watching Andrew Neil take apart Nadeem zahawi on this very topic on bbc this morning. Zahawi kept insisting they could open the spending tap because they had the defecit down to 1.2%. No you haven't, neil stopped him, its 2.3% and rising well beyond your fiscal rules. "You cannot get away with giving falsehoods on television". So Zahawi changed tack and started waffling on about a four fifth reduction which turned out to be from 2010.When will these guys learn you cant spout garbage in front of Neil and expect to get away with it?
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Being honest, I think the complaint a lot of mainstream British Jews have when it comes to Israel, is not that people would raise the issue, it's just that their activism seems to begin and end with Israel.
Thargor wrote: » Andrew Neil was very impressive there, he was straight in hammering him with the real numbers whenever Zahawi tried to weasel in the lower figure and pointing out what zahawi was doing, he wasnt reading from notes or the prompter either it was all on the fly, he might be the only one left on British tv that would be able to do that or be brave enough to do it, everyone else just accepts the lies unchallenged or in the case of May and Johnson lets them pretend to answer the question by immediately talking about an unrelated topic.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I agree with you. Neil isnt a guy i think I'd have much time for on a personal level, but at his job he's incomparable. His level of detail is amazing which i think is what sets him apart. The likes of kay burley can go on about what great hard questioners they are, but its neil who gets to the heart of it time and time again, on both sides. His dismantling of johnson during the leadership campaign will be one of the moments of the year for me. Managed to do what no other interviewer could do, make johnson look the fool he is.
SeaBreezes wrote: » What has he said/done exactly to be called an anti-Seminte? Genuinely curious.
Over the last year the list of revelations of Corbyn’s personal association with antisemitism has only grown. His coded language about “English irony” after being heckled by Jewish people at an event. His attendance at a wreath-laying ceremony for anti-Israel terrorists. His overlooking antisemitism when he penned a foreword for a book. Further examples of controversial figures with whom he shared a platform. All have reinforced the view I expressed last July about Corbyn’s character and beliefs.
Enzokk wrote: » Then you have him liking a post on Facebook about a mural that was removed. The problem was it portrayed stereotypes of Jews being selfish greedy bankers. Add to it the constant stories of his office getting involved in cases and affecting the outcomes when members have been accused of antisemitism. Then there is the case of trying to get Chris Williamson back into the party when he has a string of antisemitism offences against him as well.
boring accountant wrote: » That's nonsense. There are protests whenever a western government attempts to escalate conflict in the Middle East.
Enzokk wrote: » Neil is a very good interviewer as he does very good preparation and he doesn't let people off, but his personal views should really disqualify him from presenting for the BBC, no matter how good he is.Here is some of the reasons Then you have him liking a post on Facebook about a mural that was removed. The problem was it portrayed stereotypes of Jews being selfish greedy bankers. Add to it the constant stories of his office getting involved in cases and affecting the outcomes when members have been accused of antisemitism. Then there is the case of trying to get Chris Williamson back into the party when he has a string of antisemitism offences against him as well.More than 100 Labour MPs protest at decision to readmit Chris Williamson So unfortunately there is just such a long list that cannot but make you wonder about Corbyn, too long a list surely for it only to be a coincidence.
Rjd2 wrote: » A candidate from the 2 main parties stepped down today. Tom Harewood calling out the tories would be the equivalent of the Novara Media (Sarkar/Batani etc) calling out Corbyn.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-general-election-latest-kate-ramsden-resign-corbyn-israel-child-abuse-a9193926.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterhttps://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1192562371274969088
jm08 wrote: » Williamson's sin seems to be that he supports Corbyn. Many leading jews (like Noah Comsky) have said that what he said wasn't remotely antisemitic. What Williamson is guilty of is saying that the Labour Party reaction to the charge of semitism is that it is way too apologetic. The criticism within the party about semitism seems to be coming from the Blairites and that is what Williamson said - they were using labour party semitism to get at Corbyn and that is why they object to his selection. If Michael D. Higgins and Mary Robinson were in the British Labour Party, they would probably be doing time for being 'anti-semitic' at this stage.
I looked back through each and every example of Williamson’s despicable behaviour: lending his support to a man who defends Holocaust deniers; sharing platforms with the likes of Ken Livingstone when MPs had been specifically asked not to; his support of controversial jazz musician Gilad Atzmon; his frankly disgraceful behaviour in the aftermath of the atrocious Pittsburgh shootings. It was a litany of unacceptable behaviour.
Joe_ Public wrote: » On Neil, i see where your coming from, there is an expectation on presenters to be neutral and he does fail the test. That said, he comes across as so balanced in his presenting - an equal opportunities savager as it were - that I'm inclined to give him a pass. Its not laura kuenssberg territory anyway, where you simply have mere pretence of balance. On corbyn, I've read most of the allegations against him and i think he's definitely been guilty of poor judgment at times, nor has he lead sufficiently well on the issue. But as to whether it makes him an anti semite racist himself, i certainly dont believe anything of the sort. Same with chris Williamson. As post alludes to above, im not entirely sure why he had to be chucked out. What he said was probably misguided and inappropriate but not convinced it merited that sanction. I dont want to make light of the issue, but thats just how it seems to me.
British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn’s office interfered in independent party discipline processes aimed at rooting out anti-Semitism, the BBC said on Wednesday, a claim that the Labour Party sharply rejected.
boring accountant wrote: » I'd like to talk about Brexit if anyone is interested.
Enzokk wrote: » You could be right that his only crime is that he is a supporter of Corbyn, it could also be the following,Labour must reverse the disastrous decision to readmit Chris Williamson So either he is so unlucky that he just happens to support people who just happens to hold antisemitic views, and as evidenced on the day of the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting it just happened by bad luck that he tweeted a link to a story about an allegation against The Board of Deputies of British Jews. Or it seems clear that there is more to his suspension than just the fact that he is a ardent supporter of Corbyn. See above for the allegations against Williamson, it is not just one thing he said about Labour being too apologetic about antisemitism, it is him saying that and then supporting others that has anti-Semitic views as well. As for Corbyn, well the problem I see is that while I also don't think he is antisemitic, but the incidences of him supporting or liking posts or people that are antisemitic makes you wonder. Add in the apparent interference from his office when it comes to antisemitism allegations against members, you have to at least consider why this seems to keep happening with Labour and Corbyn.UK's Labour Party spars with BBC over charges of anti-Semitism
quokula wrote: » A decent summary of the whole anti-semitism saga (as of a few months ago, but the latest "scandal" is just the same people dredging up the same comments again) from Le Monde here: https://mondediplo.com/2019/06/09corbyn
Joe_ Public wrote: » I'll be honest and say its difficult to defend williamson, there's a lot of stuff there, circumstancial and otherwise and while i dont think what he got sacked for was that bad, he did have previous so its best he was gone. Where corbyn is concerned it was just one facebook post, wasnt it? Very silly and careless, but i dont believe he was intending to endorse its contents. I just cant imagine he's that utterly stupid. And appearing on Palestinian protest marches and events, he's obviously going to be in the vicinity of more extreme elements with likely AS views. There's a judgment issue there perhaps, critics obviously deem him guilty by association, personally I'm not so sure. Its a really difficult issue. There is an AS problem in labour but there are also those using it as a weapon to undermine corbyn and try to prevent him ever becoming pm. I do believe both those things are true to a greater or lesser extent.
