Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> > > intentionally antagonising people.

> >

> > I don't think there is any doubt he is being

> > intentionally antagonising, my question is whether

> > that is a punishable offence.

>

> Not only ought it be a punishable offence but the media ought to deny him airtime for a long, long

> time. Just choke him off.


Would you extend that to anyone deemed 'intentionally antagonising'? Or just people you disagree with?

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with

> him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very

> much.

>

> But I do think there is a free speech issue here.



You're confusing his right to free speech with whether he should remain in The Labour Party, a party which used to make fighting prejudice a key cornerstone of its existence

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> David Baddiel's post on Facebook nails this for

> me...I can't C&P from work



Tried doing it for you, but the forum won't let me post the whole thing (there must be a trigger word in there somewhere).


But this is the ending.


"

Anyway. Facebook provides too much space, really, for all this. I?ll leave with the words, shall I, of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, before he went mad, of course, according to Ken. So exactly in that period when he was, as we know, supporting Zionism. This is what Adolf said in there. I may have as much of a tin ear for meaning as Ken has for anti-Semitism, but I can?t, for the life of me, make this out to be as pro the idea of the creation of a Jewish state as Livingstone insists it is:


?While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks."


Word

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Otta Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his

> insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> > > > intentionally antagonising people.

> > >

> > > I don't think there is any doubt he is being

> > > intentionally antagonising, my question is

> whether

> > > that is a punishable offence.

> >

> > Not only ought it be a punishable offence but

> the media ought to deny him airtime for a long,

> long

> > time. Just choke him off.

>

> Would you extend that to anyone deemed

> 'intentionally antagonising'? Or just people you

> disagree with?


Just to people like Livingstone is proving to be at the moment - people who cause such gratuitous anguish to others.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with

> > him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very

> > much.

> >

> > But I do think there is a free speech issue here.

>

>

> You're confusing his right to free speech with

> whether he should remain in The Labour Party, a

> party which used to make fighting prejudice a key

> cornerstone of its existence


Well, Labour has never been big on free speech, so you may have a point,

He's a silly sausage. That's not an attempt to make light on a serious issue.


But what has really peed me off is the opportunism from the PM. Well how about an apology for the Tories who thought Hitler a good thing in the 1930s?


I'm not sure of the authenticity of this article https://gwydionwilliams.com/44-fascism-and-world-war-2/how-the-tory-party-aided-hitlers-rise/

The man's an utter bellend and his opinions are utterly foolish. Shame as I thought he did some excellent work as mayor of London, but he's clearly lost the plot. What's more worrying is that Corbyn is so utterly at sea and demonstrating that while he might have been a competent local councilor he has no idea of how to be leader of Her Majesty's Opposition - this was a chance to look decisive leadership material and he's just looked pathetic. Despair.
I feel sorry for my friends and forumites who care about Labour still it must genuinely be dispiriting to see this. I mean this by the way, I'm well past caring years ago personally, but I can still imagine what many people who care about Labour must be feeling. :(

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So predictable rrr

> https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/about-us


It may describe itself as independent and non-political, but that doesn't make it so. Their own statement about their aims makes it perfectly clear that they have a political agenda.

Livingstone is compeletely wrong in his so called facts. Hitler did not involve himself with the Haavara aggreement until 1937, by which time Jews in Germany had already been stripped of all rights. It is completely crazy to see the Nazi's signing this agreement as anything other than a way to get Jews out of Germany - nothing to do with Zionism at all. Here are two good articles by people far more expert than Livingstone the armchair historian.


https://medium.com/@josephweissman/but-ken-livingstone-is-right-google-the-haavara-agreement-ddca87ab123b


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html


And yes ????, I am utterly dismayed by the way my party is being ruined by idiots like Livingstne and Corbyn. What was I thinking when I voted for that completely inept idealogue.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I feel sorry for my friends and forumites who care

> about Labour still it must genuinely be

> dispiriting to see this. I mean this by the way,

> I'm well past caring years ago personally, but I

> can still imagine what many people who care about

> Labour must be feeling. :(


Cheers quids. I am one of those people and yes, I am dismayed at what's happened to the Labour Party.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, I generally prefer to examine what was

> actually said, rather than who they are. Play the

> ball and not the man, so to speak.

>

> Many people say stuff to entirely for effect and

> to get people offended, quite a few of them in the

> Labour party (and other parties, of course). Not a

> pleasant personality trait, but hardly unusual.

> It's a basic 'skill' for just about every

> newspaper columnist and many political campaigners

> on both the left and the right.

>

> But as you asked before, robbin, had he said

> similar remarks about other groups, what would

> have been the reaction? You asked about black

> people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex

> white van drivers? I suspect there would be

> wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on

> the group in question. What makes some worthy of

> Twitter outrage and some not?


I'll ignore the 'play the ball not the man' quip.


I've been pondering your question, Loz. Taking one of your comparator examples - What might be the difference between white van drivers and Jews that makes "some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not"?


I'll do my best to suggest an answer to your question.


In recent history, one group was subjected to state organised genocide - almost an entire population 'shipped' in animal trucks/containers to 'camps' specifically designed for their torture, medical experimentation, rape, starvation and murder by gas or other means. 1.5 million innocent children (with our without their anguished parents) were murdered and at least another 4.5 million defenceless civilian men and women met the same planned and organised fate. All in the space of a few years - stopped only by a world war and the destruction of the people and organisation responsible.


The other group - white van drivers - well, maybe the occasional Labour toff from Islington might post the odd patronising tweet about them, but I think when it comes to comparing the two groups' 'worthiness of Twitter outrage', as you put it, I think the answer would be obvious to any right minded person. Just my opinion though - it is obvious that others hold a different view, or vigorously defend the right of others' to do so.

  • 2 weeks later...
We need to remember that Ken is a dyed-in-th-wool politician and as such will be courting maximum votes therefore he is sucking up to the muslim vote which by far outnumbers the Jewish vote. Blair has admitted that his policies were designed to 'rub the establishment nose into multiculturalism'.....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Walking last Friday early evening anywhere near where the bottom end of Lordship Lane meets the Goose Green roundabout, one would have been directly confronted - as I was - with this scene: Outside the East Dulwich Tavern an impenetrable phalanx of pushing yobs, shouty louts and selfish yahoos pressed outward from the open doors of this establishment, past the curtilage (the land in front of and owned by the business), all across the public right of way, to the kerbside. This was the situation all the way along, end to end. I watched as passersby, old people, children, parents with buggies, people just going about their business, were forced by these booze-sucking bellowing scumbags onto the road - where, at that hour, traffic rushed endlessly off the roundabout. We have, I realised, somehow become so used to this revolting spectacles as to believe it to be inevitable. It is not. This is why I'm dropping this post. Enough really is enough. This roiling boozy blockade represents a total failure by all the responsible authorities - the licencing authority, for example - but most of all (yet once more, again, as ever), by Southwark Council. Two very different comparisons to give you some perspective: 1. The Kings Head pub on the corner of Albermarle and Stafford Streets, London SW1. Here too, patrons like to drink and chat outside on a warm evening - why should they not. But here, on the latter side a line marks the curtilage on the pavement. Drinkers remain, respectfully, in good order, within the line, watched, quietly and carefully, by a security guard. I wager good money this arrangement is a condition of this pub's licence. 2. The Blue Brick is a cafe in the quiet backstreets of East Dulwich, on the corners of Fellbrigg and Shawbury Roads. Until a few months ago, about half its covers were tables out on the pavement. They bothered nobody. Oh! But they extended all of several centimetres too far into the footpath, so into fearless action swang Southwark Council officers - and now these tables are gone. Result, eh? "Well you see," some wiseacre said to me, "There needs to be a complaint." Not actually true, but for sure this is all too often how local authorities get pushed to do what they should be doing. Hard to think why a complaint trumps, say (and god forbid!) a child being injured on the road. In which circumstance, of course!, Southwark would swing into noisy, virtue-signalling, belated action. But in any case let this post be considered a big, very definite COMPLAINT about this prolonged abuse of our public right of way. I invite readers who agree with me to add their voices. Oh, and all those wee local ward councillors might get off their chufties, defy their party managers, and actually help sort this scandal out. Thanks for reading, Lee Scoresby
    • Hi there, I saw that Google lists the park opening time as 7:30am, but I was wondering if it might actually open earlier than that - maybe anyone who’s out running early or passing by has noticed?  
    • We are thrilled to announce that Little Stars Creche in Dulwich will be opening its doors on 28th April and we would love to invite you and your little ones to an open day where you can meet our team and visit our wonderful setting.  Little Stars is a fun creative space for children aged 2 to 4 years to enjoy whilst parents and carers get some well needed time to catch up on life! We are so excited to bring this much-needed service to the community, and we want to thank all the wonderful parents and carers for participating in our recent survey. Your feedback was invaluable in shaping Little Stars and ensuring it meets the needs of local families. For full information about Little Stars and a detailed schedule please visit our webpage here: Little Stars Crèche We can’t wait to meet you and your little stars soon!
    • Avoid any 2nd hand vehicle with the Ford petrol 1.0 Ecoboost engine and the Petrol 1.2 PureTech engine that can be found in Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall.... (you need to mention price for advice)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...