Rayvin

You were just dying for an excuse to post that, weren't you?

This guy is really good - another tweet thread he has covers that Labour has adopted the phrasing for the definition of anti-semitism word for word from the IHRA, and his contention is that the bits that they've changed were done because the IHRA document is non legally binding, and the code of conduct -is- legally binding. They can't have woolly examples, and need clarity. Maybe this guy is a very good PR person, or maybe this is a media witch hunt again.

@Dr Gloom Yeah fair enough - I won't go through point by point as I think some of those have reached natural endings, but the last bit you mentioned where you said the bit about not consulting actual Jews - it's my understanding that they did. They just didn't consult Jews with pro-Israel sympathies? Good post btw.

Which history specifically? I know that Zionist terrorism was a thing in the run up to WW2 as Jewish people tried to take Jerusalem by force, but I don't really know what the demographic make up of the society was. If you mean that it was originally the homeland of Jewish people until conquest and imperialism took it away, then I am aware of that, and would simply point out that one act of racism doesn't negate another.

True, the last comment there was more about Britain's role in the Middle East generally. We did promise Israel to the Jews though, with Balfour. I would argue this was the same racist sentiments that eventually won out, even if we did climb down from there.

In truth that's a possible come back, but I think the Leavers would need to demonstrate that actually, enough new information has been brought to light that a re-run is needed. I've no idea how they would do that at all. Maybe if another country exits the EU and survives?

You really think civil unrest is a possibility? On what basis? If we have another referendum and the vote is Remain, what can the Leavers actually point to? The only possible point they could make is that a lot of people are now better informed and that this democratic result overturns one where we had less information about the outcomes, and fewer people understood any of the implications at all. How do you logically build up support for such a stupid contention?

How in fuck is 'No Deal' polling at 27%. It shouldn't be polling at half a fucking percent, let alone 27.

I think you could comfortably argue that when the British, Americans, and yes, the Jewish lobbyists in those countries, looked at the middle east and where Israel would 'be', they considered the lives, cultures and humanity of those they were displacing to be of far lesser importance. Presumably because these were brown people who they are moving around like chess pieces. So yeah, tbh, I think that was racist. I defy anyone to say it isn't, frankly. And it was racist when it was done to other countries too. Are we not allowed to say that about Iran? The whole splitting up of the Middle East was a British clusterfuck born out of our profound ignorance or possibly apathy about the cultures and tribal alliances we were splitting up. Yes mate, this was racist. I acknowledge the left has a particular focus on Israel, but in fairness, of all the countries you've mentioned, they are by far and away the most powerful, and with the most support from Western governments. It is indeed wrong to say Jewish people shouldn't have a home, not that I've seen anyone phrase it that way, but I'm not sure we can say it's right that "Jewish people should have a home at the expense of brown people who have been settled in the area for hundreds of years, and who have no power or say in the matter, at the behest of a bunch of rich white guys who feel guilty about what a bunch of other rich white guys did to the Jews in the first place (and also because a key ally in the middle east is politically expedient to encircle Stalin)". If Germany had turned around and offered Jewish people their own state from some part of their own country, I doubt the left would be quite so worked up about it. I do accept that there's a water under the bridge element to this of course, but I'm not entirely sure that stopping people saying this is acceptable. People should be free to point out and discuss how Israel came to be, and how insanely unfair it was on the people already living in that area - and that this stupid notion has created decades of conflict and the loss of many lives. Something which, for the record, I hold Britain almost entirely responsible for. I guess I could get on board with the notion that even if people -should- be able to say this, if it has the potential to stir up tensions and cost lives, it should not be said. But is there evidence of this? There may well be for all I know, I'm woefully uninformed on the narrative with respect of Israel, I've only really bothered looked at the history, and even then only on a cursory level. Is Ian Austin being investigated for criticizing the party, or for being abusive or something else inappropriate? Serious question, I don't know the answer. It would certainly be depressingly hypocritical if he simply disagreed with them and was investigated for it. I don't consider Friedland's opinion worthwhile I'm afraid but I read it anyway, breaking a year long embargo on his articles just to educate myself better (you're welcome ). His contention seems to be that the left wing anti-semites believe that Jewish people shouldn't have a home full stop, and to give them one anywhere is racist. Yes, I would concur that this is antisemitic. If that's what people are saying, and that's what the fuss is about, then I guess I agree with you - Labour should rule that out of acceptable parlance and be done with it. If people are saying that Israel itself, as it came to be in 'our timeline' was a racist endeavour, then I'm still struggling with that one. It does look like one in terms of the total lack of consideration for all the other people in the equation - that's not the same as saying the actual plan had racist intent, I might add.

Can someone explain why free speech needs to be curtailed on this one point. Why cant we call the creation of Israel a racist endeavour? Also, why would we want to call it that? The notion presumably is that to do so denies the right of Jewish people to have a homeland? In fairness though, they never should have been given what they have in the way they were. Does it make me antisemitic to state this or...? I dont get the significance of this point really.

Is that the only difference between the two agendas?

Ahhhh. My bad, sorry Tbh I was quite ready to believe you on a literal level

Can you explain? I see Hodge is being investigated but that's presumably for being abusive rather than antisemitic? Just wondering if I'm missing something.

Really good article.

How in fuck is Ashley going to justify a £22m profit Keeping something back for January, I suppose.

Must be another serious signing in the works though, surely. Assuming Rondon and Mitro cancel each other out, we should have about 15m left for another player. That's assuming the goal is a net spend of zero.

@Alex I didn't mean you tbh I've been chased with some rather relentless pedantry over the past day or so and i think that if my views are so objectionable that I'm getting into semantics to defend them it's probably best to bow out for a bit That said my mind has been all over the place for a few days so maybe it's me that is making no sense. Either way. You are 100% right about the personality trait tbf, slightly worrying that it's so obvious...

This is absolutely my curse. I might lay off the politics sections for a while, i seem to be inadvertently annoying people.

Yes, you've restated the 'technically' bit. Well done EDIT - Maybe need new disclaimers tbh: "Sometimes I make posts that require you to infer something beyond what I have explicitly stated." I might start adding these to my signature. The meaning was that the Tories lost their majority in an ill conceived attempt to establish a larger majority, and therefore failed in their political objective in calling the thing in the first place, thus weakening their position compared to where they were to begin with. Therefore, while they technically won the GE, they were net worse off than they were going into it. Thus, politically, they lost. But you knew all that didn't you

@Andrew Looks like I'm putting a tenner into the SBR Foundation

That was facetious. Although I do stand by the comment that politically, no one won the GE.

I acknowledged Corbyn's failings and unsuitability to lead, and my error in backing him, months ago. I'm not CT. Even though I still think Momentum made a solid fist of that GE considering where they had to come back from in the polls.

That wasn't the main point anyway tbh.

Do they get authority? Does she have that? Anyway this is pointless, yes she won the GE She has no authority, majority, mandate or power, but she is technically the PM.

Does she look happy about it?