Reply With QuoteWhat I couldn't see was the different post you were replying to to try and make sense of your humorous riposte. Perhaps you can point it out?Originally Posted by life on mars
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
So you cant see the humour in the post ? all of these folks surely you wouldn't considered for a government post even if JC had won .
Piers Corbyn was lined as head of Covid 19 task team
Abbot as a Chancellor
Livingstone in charge of inequalities
Richard Burgon Media Expert
Len of the Unite in overall charge of everyone else
What I couldn't see was the different post you were replying to to try and make sense of your humorous riposte. Perhaps you can point it out?
Learn. To. Read.
"Which post in this thread was this the light hearted response to out of interest? "
Cyril asked which post were you responding to - not asking you to explain your shite attempt at humour.
Edit: Sorry, Cyril. You beat me to the punch.
neither of you will win this debate , shame on you both making light of anti-Semitism
What debate? All you've done is spout incomprehensible nonsense (not just on this subject but in general).
Labour bad! Heisenberg bad! Even though he's clearly backed the decision to suspend Corbyn in light of the enquiry into anti-Semitism, he's making light of anti-Semitism!
PM Gluey to see if you can tag him in if you want someone else to through unsubstantiated accusations around, he's the f**king champ.
Such bitterness
What am I bitter about? If you can answer that question, I'd be pleasantly surprised.
I don't foresee a proper response though.
As you point out it is either deliberately wilful or a complete lack of comprehension.
Many will remember that there used to be a poster on here called HebertHuw whose style, approach and dubious morality became a similar source of ridicule. Perhaps he changed his name?
Come to think of it I got told that the reason HerbertHuw disappeared was that someone sussed that he used the HH capitals in his name because they stood for Heil Hitler. Never heard from him again, at least under that name!
1488 posts?
He was aiming for 1946 but didn't quite make it!
For anyone who is interested in the investigation and report - a viewpoint that didn't get press coverage:
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...e-ehrc-report/
Thanks Jon, a very good read and, in my opinion, very enlightening. Maybe Starmer should have considered the thrust of this argument before his rush to judgement.
Several posters on here (who I respect and usually agree with) along with most politicians and commentators have suggested that the EHRC should not be questioned (its' make-up. the way it decides what to investigate and what not, its' methodology.... and more). And that in the case of the Labour Antisemitism report the right response by Jeremy Corbyn etc is to accept it lock, stock and barrel, apologise again as frequently and publicly as possible, and then shut up about anything that might offend the Board of Deputies, the JLM or the Labour Friends Of Israel (or the Israeli Embassy) - because otherwise it would be evidence of blindspots or that 'they don't get it' or even more 'proof' of guilt.
Interesting (to me at least) that the latest EHRC report - into gender pay discrimination at the BBC - has also been criticised for its skewed focus and flawed methodology. In this case it cleared the BBC of any wrongdoing, despite years of evidence to the contrary - evidence which (like in another recent investigation) seems to have been discounted if it contradicted the core assumptions informing the investigation. I hope Carrie Gracie and other critics aren't denounced for failing to fully accept the conclusions of the agency or its message:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...discrimination
Carrie Gracie has described an investigation into pay discrimination at the BBC as a “whitewash”, after it cleared the broadcaster of wrongdoing.
The former BBC China editor won substantial back pay in 2018 after going public with details of how she was out-earned by equivalent male journalists at the broadcaster. She said the methodology used by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its investigation was baffling and said women could not rely on a regulator but should instead “stay strong, calm, united and justice will prevail”.
The independent inquiry followed years of disputes between BBC bosses and women who claimed to be illegally underpaid compared with male colleges, with hundreds of female employees receiving pay rises or back pay.
While many BBC pay cases were settled through internal processes, some women were forced to take lengthy legal action. Earlier this year, the BBC presenter Samira Ahmed won a £700,000 employment tribunal case against the corporation after the BBC was unable to explain why she was paid less than her male counterpart Jeremy Vine for doing equivalent work.
Despite this, the EHRC concluded its 18-month investigation by saying it had found no evidence of unequal pay, having carried out in-depth re-examinations of just 10 pay complaints against the BBC.
And....
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/11/11/not...ticising-ehrc/
Harriet Harman, who was interim Labour leader after Ed Miliband’s resignation, chairs a parliamentary committee that has issued a report on racism against black people that is highly critical of a weak EHRC it describes as inadequate, unfit for purpose – and even so ‘scared of its own shadow’ that it scarcely dare gainsay the government’s agenda.
Former party leader Jeremy Corbyn was suspended by Labour’s hierarchy for making a comment on the level of antisemitism, despite the EHRC report making clear his right to do so is legally protected.
Labour members have been ordered not to debate or vote on motions about either the suspension or the fitness of the EHRC.
So will Starmer now take action against Corbyn’s predecessor for chairing a committee that has heavily criticised the EHRC?
Or is it actually perfectly valid and acceptable to point out the weaknesses in a clearly flawed organisation, or the facts in its report?
In which case, lack of action against Harriet Harman would seem to support conclusion that the action against Jeremy Corbyn and Labour members is as politically driven as many have said.
Jon,
I know you feel passionately about this but try to avoid a complaint I have about less respected posters of putting words into the mouths of others they did not utter.
Several posters on here (who I respect and usually agree with) along with most politicians and commentators have suggested that the EHRC should not be questioned (its' make-up. the way it decides what to investigate and what not, its' methodology.... and more).
I did question Corbyn's response and his willingness to accept responsibility for what happened under his tenure. Probably not as floridly as the suggestion that people wanted him to don sackcloth and ashes and parade through the streets of London.
I believe you were complimentary of the research and findings of the EHRC report, if not its conclusions. That body seems to have been less thorough in its narrow focus on the BBC investigation.
I believe this was an avoidable outcome which, given the multitude of siren warnings about the wider political impact could have been avoided with stronger Leadership. When you look at where we ended up, for all Lavery and Trickett's revisionism today, the proof is in the pudding for me!
Cyril - OK I put a few words in mouths, but I thought at the time it was a fair interpretation of the views of several posters (you included - but others too across the spectrum) who argued here and on the main board that the report should be accepted in full and it was no time to qualify any acceptance of the recommendations. Posters who also agreed that Starmer was right to sack Long-Bailey and suspend Corbyn - both decisions which I thought were cynical, unprincipled and unjustified.
Pearcey questioned the make up and motivation of the EHRC and why they chose not to investigate Tory Islamophobia. You suggested he was indulging in whataboutery. I think he was pointing out the inherent weakness and bias of the EHRC which came through in their report. The BBC and Racism reports reinforce that for me.
I did agree that the report detailed many process failures (many predated Corbyn, some continued under him) and made a series of mostly uncontentious recommendations that I think anyone should be able to support. They concluded that there was political interference from Corbyn's office (vigorously disputed), that the Labour Party was guilty of harassment (because several of the people who made antisemitic comments held official positions - eg as councillor) and the Labour Party was guility of discrimination because the EHRC concluded that the process failures will have disproportionately disadvantaged Jewish complainants (without any evidence). They added nothing to my understanding of what actually took place in the past 5 years or longer - looking at just 70 case files and failing to apply a clear definition of antisemitism which allowed them to imply intent. They did at least acknowledge that the accused were also disadvantaged by process failures, but failed to point out that Jewish members were also disproportionately accused!
We won't agree on this - but apologies for the words in mouth.
Corbyn reinstated and now Margaret Hodge is reported to be about to leave the party;-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mitism-remarks
What a mess.
He was suspended for speaking about the report when told not to, has since taken a step back from his previous position so has been reinstated. I think some of these MPs took the suspension to mean they finally 'won' and that it happened because of anything written in the report or just because they didn't like him, it doesn't work like that.
Unless the public infighting stops labour will struggle.
Hodge and Corbyn are both too old and stuck in their ways for this game, neither should run at the next election.
Can't argue with that - Starmer has not restored the party whip to Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54986916
Posting Permissions
