Yes of course and if they haven’t already I’m sure they will be.

Yes of course and if they haven’t already I’m sure they will be.

That’s the point. He wasn’t, Thomas Gardiner refused to do it against the advice of his staff.

Refused to fast track it and…?

Refused to fast track it and…?

My recollection is he refused to take any action whatsoever. You’d need to watch the documentary yourself to double check my memory.

Makes no difference to the point in dispute. You’re saying the quote came from an anonymous twitter account, potentially a false flag. I’m saying it was an identified Labour member.

You’re now saying that the correct action WRT the guy who said it is to “kick him out quick”.

Many people would agree with you on that last point.

The Labour party certainly has. In 2003 Labour abolished Section 28, which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools.

Corbyn abstained from that in a whipped vote.

Really?! I’ve stopped looking at Corbyn’s past parliamentary voting record… mostly because it makes me feel like a complete mug for voting for Labour with him as leader.

Yes I hope that person is kicked out for racism and sexism.

Okay, this popped up when I searched “Corbyn Section 28”…

Stonewall was founded to oppose Section 28, the cruel and discriminatory law that Thatcher implemented – and I'm proud to say that Labour repealed.

I thank @stonewalluk for their 30 years of tireless work to achieve acceptance without exception for all LGBT+ people. #Stonewall30

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) May 24, 2019

But you’re saying he didn’t vote for that policy at the time? I’ll do more digging…

He didn’t vote, you’re right…

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133

His voting record on such things is generally good/supportive though, so I’m not sure we should read much into it.

Today’s choice of meeting was very odd though.

Edit: by “odd”, I mean that with so many respectable people who happen to be Jewish, including his MPs and Peers, failing to even get a reply to their emails when requesting meetings… he chooses to meet with this guy, now, this week.

He’s trolling us all! Probably a brexiteer aswell

I’m not sure we should read much into it.

Agree. I just stated a fact I heard on a podcast a few weeks back, I offered no conclusion. Certainly abstaining from one vote doesn’t make you homophobic.

Probably a brexiteer aswell

He *is* a Brexiteer and has been for 40 odd years. Hardcore Brexiteer in the Foot/Benn mould.

I mean that with so many respectable people who happen to be Jewish, including his MPs and Peers, failing to even get a reply to their emails when requesting meetings… he chooses to meet with this guy, now, this week.

Brexit is electorally damaging to Labour whereas AS won’t cost them many votes. With my tin foil hat on I can see every reason to fuel the AS story to keep the Brexit stuff out of the media.

ctk

Member
He’s trolling us all! Probably a brexiteer aswell

As in his guest Shraga Stern is probably a brexiteer & therefore the most infuriating guest JC could possibly invite.

Just to throw another aspect in: notice how the antisemitism abuse, and it is abuse, is pretty much exclusively aimed at females. Including rape threats.

Nice. Stay classy.

So it’s basically pretty ****ing Misogynistic too. In some cases violently so. As well as being openly racist – let’s call it what it is. The term ‘antisemitism’ just means racist. You can’t pick and choose. You either are or you aren’t

Just remind me again what the point of the Labour Party is if it’s prepared to tolerate this?

And the left wears it’s moral high ground over the far right like a badge of honour.

Why exactly? Because from where i’m Looking, you’re now both has bad as each other.

From where are you looking BinBins? Are you in the middle? Neither left nor right but always “right”

Stop looking at twitter its messing with your reasoning skills.

outofbreath

Member

The Labour party certainly has. In 2003 Labour abolished Section 28, which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools.

Corbyn abstained from that in a whipped vote.

Nope, he did not- he was absent, he didn’t abstain (so was Tony Blair, funnily enough)- the vote passed 368 to 76, with over 200 MPs absent since it was a foregone conclusion.

You’re not going to get anywhere attacking Corbyn’s record on LGBT+ rights, not even by misrepresenting it. He voted against clause 28 in 1987, and he was one of only 36 MPs who voted to push for its repeal in 2000 when the House of Lords was blocking it. (and before that, in fact- he was heavily involved in the 85 conference resolution that any future Labour government should criminalise anti-gay discrimination). It’s pretty much the only thing I knew about Corbyn before he ran for leader.

Agreed.

Which makes today’s meeting seem even more out of place.

Check out this strong contribution from Corbyn in 2000…

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000725/debtext/00725-47.htm

kelvin

Subscriber

Agreed.

Which makes today’s meeting seem even more out of place.

Is it though? I mean, Stern says that there was no organised meeting- he was in parliament on other business, and then saw Corbyn having lunch and joined him “for a chat”. If that’s a “meeting”, then I’ve had “a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn in which the two discussed scottish independence”. I’m not seeing the significance of any of it, except that it’s another opportunity for people to have a pop.

It’s the “wrong sort of jews” thing again, of course, but it’s really overtly weird to me that on the day that all the talk is about Labour not welcoming jews, Corbyn gets ripped to bits for welcoming a jew. Don’t think it’s too cynical to suggest we’d be seeing “Corbyn refuses to meet with Jewish community leader” if he’d got up and walked away, either. Just because he represents from a part of the faith that probably more people have issues with doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have a voice or that the mainstream should be free to shout him down and marginalise him.

(I don’t see what Stern hopes to gain from it, mind- he’s been making a lot of noise about sex and LGBT+ education in schools, but Corbyn’s about the last person that’s ever going to help them with that…)

The “wrong sort of jew” thing is always pretty interesting imo… Like, haredi jews are going to be the biggest jewish group in the UK within the next decades- they have large families and fewer people leaving the faith, while everywhere else in the faith the population is aging and the birthrate is lower than the death rate.

But for now they’re definitely “the wrong sort of jew”- they have no voting rights in the Board of Deputies, which claims to represent all british jews but is openly hostile to them (and to the most liberal side, too). Jewish Labour treats them like pariahs rather than representing them, the Chronicle’s very critical in a way that the mainstream press probably wouldn’t dare. It’s a side of the faith that a lot of people don’t really want to talk about… But they can’t attack them in the same way that they do the liberal end of the spectrum. They’re also the group that suffers the most from antisemitism, since they’re so easily identified and follow a more divisive version of the faith… but they’re not usually the people you see talking about it.

It’s all pretty fascinating imo- real human politics on the large and tiny scale, and some really powerful demographic forces at work. What happens when the numbers finally tip? Will the current top dogs manage to keep that position? Will they welcome them in, or will they get toppled, or just become irrelevant? Or will they be able to carry on claiming to be the one true voice of judaism as it gets less and less true every day?

Nice twist.
No, not nice… the opposite.

I should have gone with my first instinct and stayed well away from this thread once the antisemitism issue became core to it.

Brexit is electorally damaging to Labour whereas AS won’t cost them many votes.

Yep, most people probably didn’t care than much about poor handling of antisemitism a year ago and a lot of those that did are probably bored of it now. It is not an issue that is going to be impacting the lives of the majority of voters. Much the same as majority of people don’t really care that the tory party are a bit anti muslim.

I think it boils down to the majority of people not being 100% non racist.

Nope, he did not- he was absent, he didn’t abstain

This is the rabbit hole of all rabbit holes but he *did* abstain: You either vote or you abstain. There’s no other option. If there was MPs could avoid all blame on difficult controversial votes by simply not turning up.

Nobody in this thread is suggesting he abstained because he didn’t want to vote for it, but he *did* abstain.

I thought the interesting bit of my post was that George Osborne, John Bercow & Boris Johnson all voted to abolish Section 28 against their whip. All the candidates in the Tory leadership contest (including Boris) could/can point to the kind of one nation Tory liberal Heritage required to park their tanks right on the centre left bit on the lawn Labour have retreated from. Which is exactly what they need to do. You don’t win elections appealing to your core vote, they’re already onside.

Sorry for the massive digression/stream of conciousness.

Stern says that there was no organised meeting- he was in parliament on other business, and then saw Corbyn having lunch and joined him “for a chat”.

I’ve not read about it but that sounds likely, the term ‘meeting’ always sounded a bit dubious.

My sympathy is 100pc with Corbyn on this one. He’s under pressure for being anti-jew. A bloke who looks a bit Jewish rocks up for a chat. Of course he’s going to engage with him as visibly as he can. JC can’t reasonably google the guy on the spot to see if there are any bear traps waiting and google might not even have identified issues with the guy before it hit the news. I’d have done the same as JC, I’d be suspicious of anyone who says they wouldn’t.

Mind you, his strange record on who he will meet and who he won’t meet is pretty unhelpful.

More shooting of messengers

Party disciplinary procedures are swift and decisive for some.

For others… not seen much..

More shooting of messengers

Party disciplinary procedures are swift and decisive for some.

For others… not seen much..

Keeps Labour’s insane position on Brexit out the news though.

Can someone remind me what it is? They will oppose no deal, or *any* deal the current Government negotiate.

However they will then negotiate a deal of their own and put it to a referendum and campaign *against* their own deal.

Have I got that right?

Who knows?

Seems like a lot of Labour MP’s are now favouring backing a Boris Johnson No Deal Brexit

I note that they’ve been allowed to voice that without any comment from ‘The Leadership’, so one can only assume that though supporting the Lib Dems will immediately get you kicked out of the party, saying you’ll back the Tories No Deal Brexit plans is all absolutely fine

These people complaining about AS in Labour (the peers were mostly Blair appointees) could make a really serious strong case if they came up with names, dates and evidence.
Naomi Klein supports BDS, what does that make her?

These people complaining about AS in Labour (the peers were mostly Blair appointees)

Quite a stark reminder of how far Labour has fallen when Blair’s buddies are the moral backbone of the party.

the peers were mostly Blair appointees

Not…. *pause for dramatic effect*… BLAIRITES?!!!!

*gasp*

Well that explains it all then. Its all a dastardly plot by those bloody centrists

Come the glorious revolution, comrades….

Party disciplinary procedures are swift and decisive for some.

Her description seemed spot on to me… certainly looks like a “bunker mentality” to many of us poor media misled saps outside politics.

if they came up with names, dates and evidence

They have. That’s the whole point.

Naomi Klein supports BDS, what does that make her?

Many people fully support the boycott (I still do, when others seem to have forgotten about it) without ever resorting to antisemitism.

Party disciplinary procedures are swift and decisive for some.

You do realise that wouldnt fall under “Party disciplinary procedure” dont you? Thats only if she got kicked out or the whip withdrawn.

Indeed… it’s the action of those in the “bunker” alone to sack her… not the party.

Morning comrade.

Thanks for clearing that up. Will she just be airbrushed out of the politburo photographs then?

She ain’t a haredi, must be a wrong ‘un. Damned good writer too.

Damned good writer too.

One of the best.

Thanks for clearing that up. Will she just be airbrushed out of the politburo photographs then?

You know you could admit to writing rubbish rather than resorting to your primary school responses.

The point was she was sacked from her post for pointing out the obvious. Other front benchers can defy the whip and stay in place.

Many people fully support the boycott (I still do, when others seem to have forgotten about it) without ever resorting to antisemitism.

And of those some will be accused of it anyway.
Problem is both extremes see advantages in blurring being Jewish and being Israeli together.

Sorry Comrade. Looks like its off to the gulag for me then, eh? 😀

Jeremy Corbyn supporters react with humour and good grace to mockery of his Brexit position

The point was she was sacked from her post for pointing out the obvious.

No the “point” being made was an incorrect comparison of two different things.
Do you agree that Binners was correct in doing so?
Then can discuss the pros and cons of the sacking (whilst I would agree with her statement to some extent (with the difference that half the people in the bunker werent more interested in attacking inside than out) given that she is deputy leader does make it a tad awkward)

Do you agree that Binners was correct in doing so?

Yes… both the Leader & his team, and the party system they have ensured they have a strangle hold on, are quite arbitrary about who they discipline and how. No, not arbitrary, ruthlessly self interested, to the point of damaging the party they serve and the country it should be looking to govern.