Politics Thread 5

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Samuel_1
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Samuel_1 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:40 am

About the reporter for the programme:

John Ware: pro-Israel former Sun journalist


In one Panorama episode, Ware had accused a pro-Palestinian charity of being a front for terrorism. The following year, the BBC was forced to pay undisclosed damages to the charity’s former general manager for libel and to issue a public apology.


The programme led the Islamic Human Rights Commission to nominate Ware for an ‘Islamophobia award’, noting that he: "claims that anti-Semitism is “entirely irrational” however Islamophobia “is reactive.” And therefore also justifiable?"


In a 2013 film for the BBC, Ware referred often to ‘jihadists’ and ‘Islamists’ as a threat on Israel’s ‘hostile border’, but also found time to look askance at Ultra-Orthodox Jews who oppose zionism.

Supporting My Local Mule Sanctuary Since 11/11/2014.

Donations welcome, please PM me to prevent unwarranted mule kicking.
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:46 am

Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

User avatar
Samuel_1
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Samuel_1 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:02 am

Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

About a different subject, I was providing some context that may call into question the objectivity of the reporter in this case.

Supporting My Local Mule Sanctuary Since 11/11/2014.

Donations welcome, please PM me to prevent unwarranted mule kicking.
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:03 am

Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

About a different subject, I was providing some context that may call into question the objectivity of the reporter in this case.


Context...being...on different subjects? Which is the excuse you use to ignore my point...ok...

No. You were attempting to smear him rather than deal with the points raised because he dared be critical of your cult god.

User avatar
Samuel_1
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Samuel_1 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:06 am

Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

About a different subject, I was providing some context that may call into question the objectivity of the reporter in this case.


No. You were attempting to smear him rather than deal with the points raised because he dared be critical of your cult god.

Not my cult God, what is the issue with offering context here, that quote is from 2002, things change, opinions change? While I accept there are instances of AS in the Labour party, I do not believe that the party is institutionally racist.

Last edited by Samuel_1 on Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Supporting My Local Mule Sanctuary Since 11/11/2014.

Donations welcome, please PM me to prevent unwarranted mule kicking.
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by BID0 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:07 am

If you're in the Green party check your emails as they're canvassing opinion on the Unite to Remain project

Do we Unite to Remain? Have your say now
Dear X,

As your elected co-leaders our job is to represent the values and policies of our membership. It’s fundamental to the way our party works that we listen and act on the direction given to us by our members.

The party's current strategic priorities include campaigning to stay in the EU, tackling climate change, calling for a fairer voting system at General Elections, and maximising the number of elected Greens.

In recent weeks, many of you have contacted us personally urging us either to forge ahead with electoral arrangements or to avoid them, while other members have discussed these issues on party forums and social media. We are reading and listening to these messages and now we want to give all members the chance to tell us what they think.

In particular, today, we have seen new proposals made by Unite to Remain, an organisation lobbying for political parties to come together in the event of a snap General Election this year, particularly if there is a Boris Johnson/Nigel Farage alliance to push through Brexit. That organisation has challenged us as your co-leaders to discuss these ideas and our stance with them.

Please let us know your thoughts before 11.59pm on Monday 15th July.

Unite to Remain is calling for an electoral arrangement whereby parties campaigning for Remain stand just one candidate in each constituency with a Brexit-supporting MP, or at risk of electing a Brexit-supporting MP according to constituency level polling, in order to create a majority in Parliament for remaining in the EU and a People's Vote. This proposal would mean Greens standing as the sole candidate from a party campaigning for Remain in a significant number of seats. In our view, this aspect would be vital. Absolutely no proposal we would consider discussing could be about standing down with nothing in return.

The attempts to form a progressive alliance in 2017 led to a largely bruising experience due to the lack of time for preparation given the snap nature of the election, and the fact no reciprocation was offered on a national level, but we have a Green Party conference mandate from members to listen to approaches from others and discuss political arrangements that would provide a pathway to bring in a fairer voting system. We will of course listen to what Unite to Remain suggest, and will listen to the views of other political parties. Listening is in our nature.

But after listening comes hard decisions that we don’t at this stage have a full mandate to make. As members, we need a steer from you on what factors and priorities you believe we should be considering as we meet and listen to others, and ahead of putting any ideas forward within the party's appropriate decision-making processes. Your views as members on the questions in the survey would be really helpful to guide us in the coming days. Please complete the survey by Monday 15th July 11.59pm.

Thank you,
Siân Berry and Jonathan Bartley
Co-Leaders, Green Party of England and Wales


These are the questions:
  • In principle, to what extent do you agree that the Green Party co-leaders should consider potential electoral arrangements with other parties or independent organisations? This would be on the condition that outcomes sought were to increase the number of Green MPs, seek guarantees in any arrangement that winning MPs would back a fairer voting system, back remaining in the EU and seek urgent action on climate change.

    vote between [1 Very Strongly Disagree] - [10 Very Strongly Agree]

  • Do you agree it is important that Green Party candidates stand under the Green Party name on ballot papers in any electoral arrangement at a snap General Election?

    yes/no

  • When considering any electoral arrangement, do you believe there would be a more effective alternative to meet the urgent needs to gain Green MPs, change the UK’s General Election voting system, staying in the EU and securing urgent action on climate change?

    yes/no

Last edited by BID0 on Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:12 am

Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

About a different subject, I was providing some context that may call into question the objectivity of the reporter in this case.


No. You were attempting to smear him rather than deal with the points raised because he dared be critical of your cult god.

Not my cult God, what is the issue with offering context here, that quote is from 2002, things change, opinions change? While I accept there are instances of AS in the Labour party, I do not believe that the party is institutionally racist.


And your points are also from years ago and on different topics. But that's ok for some reason...

Corbyn's Lab's problem isn't necessarily that it's institutionally racist. It's just that it's institutionally arrogant and self satisfied - which is why it's completely unable to even comprehend, never mind deal with instances where it's (or it's more favored sons) done a goof, and why the issue snowballs due to this ineptitude.

User avatar
Samuel_1
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Samuel_1 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:21 am

Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

About a different subject, I was providing some context that may call into question the objectivity of the reporter in this case.


No. You were attempting to smear him rather than deal with the points raised because he dared be critical of your cult god.

Not my cult God, what is the issue with offering context here, that quote is from 2002, things change, opinions change? While I accept there are instances of AS in the Labour party, I do not believe that the party is institutionally racist.


And your points are also from years ago and on different topics. But that's ok for some reason...

Corbyn's Lab's problem isn't necessarily that it's institutionally racist. It's just that it's institutionally arrogant and self satisfied - which is why it's completely unable to even comprehend, never mind deal with instances where it's (or it's more favored sons) done a goof, and why the issue snowballs due to this ineptitude.

Do you think is acceptable to agree with a person on some issues and disagree on others?

I hope they do get a better handle on the AS situation, but each case does need to be investigated. Genuine question: Do you think the level of reporting surrounding AS is somewhat strange, given the overtly racist things that people in other parties have said?

Supporting My Local Mule Sanctuary Since 11/11/2014.

Donations welcome, please PM me to prevent unwarranted mule kicking.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:22 am

Next Tuesday on Channel 5:

Naughty! The Life and Loves of Boris!


This is the sort of reason why this dangerous prick gets away with so much. Conspiring to beat up a journalist, increasing the sentence of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and telling non-stop lies are irrelevant because LOL it’s Boris innit!

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Errkal » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:28 am

Moggy wrote:Next Tuesday on Channel 5:

Naughty! The Life and Loves of Boris!


This is the sort of reason why this dangerous prick gets away with so much. Conspiring to beat up a journalist, increasing the sentence of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and telling non-stop lies are irrelevant because LOL it’s Boris innit!


He is such a naughty little tyke.

User avatar
Met
Member
Joined in 2015

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Met » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:36 am

Speaking of Boris, do we have an ETA on when he's voted in as supreme leader?

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:49 am

Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:About the reporter for the programme:


[an] ever-vigilant investigative journalist, John Ware, [with] perseverance and courage in researching and broadcasting


says Jeremy Corbyn, in the Parliamentary motion he put forward praising Panorama and Ware.

Awkward

But that was when he was investigating targets they agreed with obviously. Things change when they criticise the beloved leader.

About a different subject, I was providing some context that may call into question the objectivity of the reporter in this case.


No. You were attempting to smear him rather than deal with the points raised because he dared be critical of your cult god.

Not my cult God, what is the issue with offering context here, that quote is from 2002, things change, opinions change? While I accept there are instances of AS in the Labour party, I do not believe that the party is institutionally racist.


And your points are also from years ago and on different topics. But that's ok for some reason...

Corbyn's Lab's problem isn't necessarily that it's institutionally racist. It's just that it's institutionally arrogant and self satisfied - which is why it's completely unable to even comprehend, never mind deal with instances where it's (or it's more favored sons) done a goof, and why the issue snowballs due to this ineptitude.

Do you think is acceptable to agree with a person on some issues and disagree on others?

I hope they do get a better handle on the AS situation, but each case does need to be investigated. Genuine question: Do you think the level of reporting surrounding AS is somewhat strange, given the overtly racist things that people in other parties have said?


I think it's incredible bare faced to say praise someone in a Parliament motion as amazing journalist, and then when you're the subject try to attack their character as biased hack.

I think whataboutery is a pretty terrible fallacy?

I think "at least we're not as bad as the Tories" isn't really a strong defense?

I think the "decline" of the Lab party's standing/approach is a lot more concerning than a party that's always been terrible?

The leaderships entire response to this issue, and the main reason it's been allowed to fester/escalate, is "We're the goodies obviously we can do no wrong and we don't need to change"

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:54 am

Met wrote:Speaking of Boris, do we have an ETA on when he's voted in as supreme leader?


22nd July IIRC

User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hyperion » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:04 am

Met wrote:Speaking of Boris, do we have an ETA on when he's voted in as supreme leader?

Votes announced on 23rd
May goes to the Queen and resigns on the 24th

Image
Ad7 wrote:stop moaning about it
User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Karl_ » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:36 am

I think Labour are a big enough party that they could and should set up a more efficient expulsion procedure for racism. I'm not a Labour member but if they are really investigating people for months and dragging their heels that's wrong. They've either been racist or not, it should be done within days. Even if some complaints are being made in bad faith (in our current climate I would argue some probably are), you can't kick it into the long grass and hope it goes away because that starts to look like complicity.

That doesn't seem to be thrust of this guy's documentary though, from the summary it seems to be "look, there is an evil anti-Jewish conspiracy in Labour". I obviously don't think Labour are institutionally racist. They have clearly never been a racist party, and there's no evidence to support the premise it has become one. Surveys of voters' issues don't suggest that, surveys of members' views don't suggest that, the rhetorical space inhabited by its MPs wouldn't suggest that, party policy doesn't suggest that, nothing Corbyn has said or done seriously suggests that (though these tabloid types sure are trying!).

I also don't think the reporting about instances of racism about Labour is in good faith. There should be 10 headlines about Tory racism and 100 headlines about Brexit Party racism before there is 1 headline about Labour racism.

Which leads to the thought that, although toughening up would be good and morally correct in itself, I don't believe the headlines would actually stop even if Labour started summary expulsions with a 1 hour turnaround time. The headlines will just become "Why does Labour need such a big antisemitism team? Yikes, not a good look!" and "Yet *another* member expelled!" every few weeks. Because again, no genuine analysis is being done, it's just post hoc excuse-finding to accuse the left of being the real fascists.

Of course it's difficult to discuss this in a detached way because it's all "You are in the cult of Corbyn!" or "You're making excuses for hating Jews!" or whatever. (I vote Green and I think Corbyn is actively assisting this country's slide into fascism by refusing to pick a stance on Brexit, for what it's worth, so there you go.)

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Errkal » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:44 am

I think a lot of the issue is that chunks of the party don’t realise it’s antisemetic, James O’Brien did a chunk of show on it all, a lot of the now importantish people in the Corbyn world have spend decades talking to rooms of people getting applauded for the stuff they say so they don’t know it is wrong.

The party is a joke right now, they almost need to go “you know what, we don’t know what to do here” and get an external independent body of some kind to run the reviews and expulsions and clearly they can’t handle it themselves.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:45 am

Edit - i've no idea where I quoted Erk there! Nothing to do with this!

Tommy Robinson has been given a nine-month jail sentence after he was found guilty of contempt of court at an earlier hearing.

The 36-year-old, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broadcast reports that encouraged “vigilante action” and “unlawful physical” aggression against defendants in a sexual exploitation trial, according to the judges who found him guilty earlier this month.

Robinson, from Luton, Bedfordshire, had denied breaching a reporting ban by livestreaming footage of defendants arriving at court. He insisted he had only referred to information already in the public domain.

After deduction for time served, the sentence will amount to 19 weeks.

Topics

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by BID0 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:53 am

Errkal wrote:I think a lot of the issue is that chunks of the party don’t realise it’s antisemetic, James O’Brien did a chunk of show on it all, a lot of the now importantish people in the Corbyn world have spend decades talking to rooms of people getting applauded for the stuff they say so they don’t know it is wrong.

The party is a joke right now, they almost need to go “you know what, we don’t know what to do here” and get an external independent body of some kind to run the reviews and expulsions and clearly they can’t handle it themselves.

I'm pretty sure their current system works independently already which is the reason behind the "too slow to act".

User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Lagamorph » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:14 pm

It's a huge risk by the BBC to outright edit material like that. Did they think nobody from the Labour party was going to be watching?

Then again I suppose they thought that, ultimately, not enough people in a position to do anything about it will care, and they're probably right.
I do wonder if Labour have the option of privately prosecuting the BBC

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Hexx » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:26 pm

Lagamorph wrote:It's a huge risk by the BBC to outright edit material like that. Did they think nobody from the Labour party was going to be watching?

Then again I suppose they thought that, ultimately, not enough people in a position to do anything about it will care, and they're probably right.
I do wonder if Labour have the option of privately prosecuting the BBC


Have Lab actually found any "editting", because the example they highlighted earlier were woefully ineffectual at changing the message.

And taking a quote is not "editting" or "doctoring" - it would have to fundamentally alter the intent/meaning But that's become the story now in the Corbynites crusade against the enemy of the people! - and Lab, unless I've missed it, haven't provided evidence of that. Just that they've got off the bit the Lab are desperate to use to spin spin spin

Something’s going wrong, and we’re muddling up political disputes with racism


But if we’re more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for antisemitism, Something’s going wrong, and we’re muddling up political disputes with racism


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Albear, Cuttooth, Errkal, Preezy, Tafdolphin and 63 guests