That’s a pretty loud dog whistle you have there.

More a “I don’t get it” foghorn

Sure, must be on about something other than the cases he is commenting on. Makes sense. To someone who just wants to believe that is.

Quite possibly, but in order to be successful in a libel action, the plaintiffs would have to prove that he was referring specifically to them rather than generally to a pattern of adverse reporting on the topic, and that the words themselves were defamatory. I’m not sure either is possible, for the reasons I gave above. Saying that a report is wrong because the journalist is a liar and a shill is defamatory. Saying that a report is wrong and liable to mislead the reader is not.

The initial action against Labour was justified. This secondary action against Corbyn looks like another thing altogether.

And I say that as someone who thinks Corbyn was a bloody disastrous leader for Labour, failing both them and the country at a time when populist threats have most likely set us back a generation politically and economically.

in order to be successful in a libel action, the plaintiffs would have to prove that he was referring specifically to them

So, he might win the case due to weasel words, yet damage the party because of his obvious intent?

I’m not addressing whether he should have just kept his trap shut. It’s pretty obvious he should have. Just whether it constituted defamation. Whoever is advising Ware seemed to come to that conclusion pretty quickly, I find that surprising as it seems the effect would be pretty vexatious, whatever the intent.

@kelvin

“Juicy pre-election contracts for the ‘top team’ only…”

I’m not seeing any ‘millionaires’ there? How much do you think a SPAD should get paid?

I’m not seeing any ‘millionaires’ there?

> sigh <

Look harder.

Just whether it constituted defamation.

I think the intent was very clear, but I have no idea if it would be judged so in the legal system. I’d rather we didn’t have to find out.

By pre election you mean a full year before the election. & at a bang average rate for a spad.

& so much hate for millionaires surely some of the posters on here have a million in assets?

How much do you think a SPAD should get paid?

at a bang average rate for a spad.

The rate wasn’t relevant… only giving time limited contracts to ‘lesser’ staff, while giving these few gold plated long term contracts, and the chance of a payoff if removed post election, was the point.

——————————————————————-

Jeremy Corbyn got me voting Labour with his left wing policies… but his reliance on ‘millionaire marxists’ Andrew Murray and Seamus Milne, made me wary of what that team would do in no10 beyond the stated policies… (I still voted Labour though)… it takes not a moment of contemplation to see how wary anyone not ‘of the Left’ would be voting with us for that team.

——————————————————————-

took their thirty pieces of silver

No further explanation about why you chose these particular words, when talking about a settlement with antisemitism whistleblowers, to try and help Labour move on?

Sorry to disappoint but this is not a 'gotcha' moment:
– The searches were authorised & legitimately carried out. The information used in the internal report into the handling of antisemitism complaints came to light when searches were undertaken in response to EHRC requests 1/2 https://t.co/kuAjqAClcX

— Jennie Formby (@Jennieformby1) July 24, 2020

No further explanation about why you chose these particular words, when talking about a settlement with antisemitism whistleblowers, to try and help Labour move on?

I could be wrong and apologise in advance if I am but the settlement and apology are for their names appearing in a leaked report.

No further explanation about why you chose these particular words

Instead of piling on with the McCarthyite witch hunt maybe you could address the point that the people who are endangering the finances of the party and stoking further internal division with their money grubbing legal actions are the very same people from the right who were proven to be actively undermining labour’s 2017 election campaign. You might also consider that if that tweet from Formby above is correct then the party have actually got nothing to worry about and are settling these claims not for legal reasons, but for some political reason which is as yet unclear, which is exactly what Corbyn said in his statement.

I have no idea what Starmer is up to, but this is transparently the very opposite of ‘unifying the party’ and I for one won’t continue paying a membership to an organisation which is clearly rotten to the core, and has a leadership which appears to be conducting a completely unnecessary and costly witch hunt against it’s predecessors and the members who supported them. FFS Corbyn was happy on his allotment and no one had heard a peep from him. This whole fiasco has been created by people who cannot accept victory. They won’t be happy until they’ve gutted the party of everyone they lost to back in 2015. It’s vengeance and bullying and nothing else, and I for one hope these f***** never get anywhere near power.

Instead of piling on with the McCarthyite witch hunt

Er… right…

I for one hope these f***** never get anywhere near power

Well, I still want a Labour government.

Well, I still want a Labour government.

If the likes of McNichol et al who are driving this wholly unnecessary and vengeful witch hunt are back at the top of the party then I’ll be honest I don’t. They’re no better than the people who are in government now. And if Starmer allows them back then the same goes for him. He won the leadership with the votes of leftwingers on the promise of drawing a line under the divisions. His only chance is to deliver on that.

Instead of piling on with the McCarthyite witch hunt

The “I don’t get it” foghorn is still blaring away

It seems a bit odd that getting vexed about the new classifieds gets you the banhammer yet post anti-Semitic tropes and that’s ok……

I could be wrong and apologise in advance if I am but the settlement and apology are for their names appearing in a leaked report.

Why did you choose to use the words “took their thirty pieces of silver“? Just echoing what you’ve heard elsewhere? Why that phrase?

Why that phrase?

Please stop with the looking for stuff that’s not there. This routine of branding anyone on the left as a racist is not only tiresome but it’s extremely offensive and upsetting to many of us. He almost certainly used that phrase because the labour staffers were proven to have betrayed the party which employed them and now are compounding that betrayal by suing them for a quick buck. Using the phrase ’30 pieces of silver’ in relaion to acs of betrayal is a common association and doesn’t mean you’re an anti-semite which is what you’re clearly implying.

Daz… Jennie Formby was explicitly told by the party’s lawyers not to publish that hatchet job report as it would result in a load of legal cases.

So she leaked it to the press, which amounts to the same thing, and guess what? It’s resulted in a load of legal cases

So to describe that as a witch hunt and suggest that she’s somehow the victim in all this is absolutely absurd.

She was clearly told not to do something, and exactly what would happen if she did, but she went ahead and did it anyway, with the predicted results.

Binners there are two sides to every story. If Formby says the report was written in accordance with the law then it could/should be tested in court. We all know it won’t be though because it suits the right wing political agenda to settle. And it in no way changes the fact that the people who betrayed the party before are now doing more damage in an effort to enrich themselves and create more division. It’s indefensible. This is Starmers big test. He can stay true to his leadership campaign or he can cave in to the right and probably split the party for good.

This routine of branding anyone on the left as a racist is not only tiresome but it’s extremely offensive and upsetting to many of us. Using the phrase ’30 pieces of silver’ in relaion to acs of betrayal is a common association and doesn’t mean you’re an anti-semite which is what you’re clearly implying.

Really Dazh? You’re defending that? It’s irrelevant to me if the poster is “on the Left” like myself or not… we all need to be far more careful about using/spreading these tropes when talking about antisemitism… there is no excuse. If it was meant or passed on innocently, then the poster can say so. If he genuinely doesn’t see why it is problematic, we can discuss it. If you honestly can’t see why it’s problematic, I’m surprised.

Hmmmmmm…. given that it’s the difference between a couple of hundred grand out-of-court settlement or years in the courts and millions of pounds in legal fees that could potentially bankrupt the whole party, who’s legal judgement should we listen to here?

The qualified and highly respected senior QC and former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer?

Or the former shop steward who caused this mess by just blatantly ignored the advice of her own Parties senior lawyers, Jennie Formby?

I have to say, it’s a tough call

When you question this anti-Corbyn sentiment, all you get is regurgitated tabloid bile. I still don’t get it really. I notice the loudest people are often the shortest in facts.

The right-wing of Labour, having spent the past four years doing everything they can to sabotage electoral success of their own party, now come back on their high horses demanding we forget about it and vote for ‘their’ candidate?

So what do you alleged Labour ‘supporters’ say to the millions of us who got involved with this political party to try and make a fairer country, only to see our democratically elected representative trashed in the media, and backstabbed by every opportunity by a bunch of nasty careerists?

And then you have the audacity to blame us for a Tory government. That really is the definition of political gaslighting at its most contemptible. Well done. Great job. Now we’re looking down the barrel of a hard-Brexit and another four years of the most dishonest, venal, and mendacious opportunists in the country’s political history.

You’re defending that?

Not defending anything. It’s not a phrase I would use but I am saying we should stop reaching for the anti-semitism smears at every fleeting opportunity. It’s extremely offensive and distressing to be smeared as a racist if you’re not one and it’s not something to use casually.

As for the 30 pieces of silver phrase I get that sensitivities are heightened right now but really, if that is now deemed as racist then that’s about 2 billion Christians who are now on the wrong side of the divide.

It’s extremely offensive and distressing to be smeared as a racist if you’re not one and it’s not something to use casually.

Who have I called a racist?

Should I not question the use of that phrase when used in the context it was?

Does being ‘on the left’ mean you can say anything without being called up on it?

So what do you alleged Labour ‘supporters’ say to the millions of us who got involved with this political party to try and make a fairer country

I wasn’t a Labour supporter, I always considered them to the right of my politics. Corbyn got me voting Labour, my politics are closer to his than there are to even where the Labour Party policy moved with him as leader… I’m in favour of unilateral neucleur disarmament for example. I’m not blind to his failings as leader though, or jumping to defend the mess he seems to want to keep rolling on as regards antisemitism within the party he led to abject failure last year. Change is need in the Labour Party… if it can do so without a lurch to the right, it’ll keep the vote of people like me, and hopefully those lost to others parties or not voting can be brought in as well. It’s clear that some people just want to leave with Corbyn, even if the politics of the party stay on the left. It looks like cultism.

only to see our democratically elected representative trashed in the media

Speaking personally, I don’t have any say in how the media attacks Labour leaders.

who’s legal judgement should we listen to here?

A less than ideal situation no doubt, brought about by the actions of people who were working from the inside to undermine the party, and now that they’ve been exposed are using the opportunity to enrich themselves. That’s the real issue here but you don’t seem too bothered by that.

I think some people need to loosen their tinfoil helmets a bit as they appear to be cutting off your circulation

Wait, are whistleblowers bad now?

Whistleblowers keep us safe. We can’t allow them to be silenced – writes Labour's Shami Chakrabarti https://t.co/0453j8BMEP

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) February 13, 2017

Jeez, even when he’s gone he’s still producing negative headlines for Labour. At least Kinnock let himself be forgotten.

I think they now fall under the classification of ‘Enemies of the Revolution’. Until they’ve benefited from ‘re-education’ obviously, comrade.

Did Shami mention anything about whitewashing? I need to do an exterior wall and I hear she’s a dab hand

kelvin
Subscriber

Why did you choose to use the words “took their thirty pieces of silver“? Just echoing what you’ve heard elsewhere? Why that phrase?

OK, I’ve got to say this is the first time I’ve ever seen this described as an antisemitic trope. Judas was jewish, sure, but it was as a christian convert and apostle of christ that he betrayed him. But it’s also well established culturally as a general description of selling out or betraying someone. Not sure if I’ve ever used it myself but if I do, it’ll be because of that- just like in Crime and Punishment.

If you were using it to complain about a dodgy referee, I probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid… but when talking about whistleblowers about antisemitism… why choose those words…?

For the same reason as you chose it to complain about the dodgy referee?

If you are tone deaf, perhaps.

Does anybody think the Panorama program was balanced? Does anyone think the BBCs coverage of Corbyn and AS was balanced?

Does anybody think the Panorama program was balanced?

No. Definitely not.

Does anyone think the BBCs coverage of Corbyn and AS was balanced?

Much harder to determine.

Balance isn’t always the aim of journalism though.

I’m pretty much the last person to be accused of being tone deaf tbh, I’m a total handwringer.

As you say yourself, it can be used without any connection to religion at all- you wouldn’t bat an eyelid if someone says it in another context, about a referee or shouted at Bob Dylan. Context is important of course but if it can be not just innocently used, but in fact completely without any connection to judaism at all, then to presume it in this case just because it is in a discussion of antisemitism, seems like jumping at shadows. Whatever the exact opposite of tone deaf is.

TBF, most times when people get accused of taking 30 pieces of silver or of being a judas, it’ll be completely unconnected to religion other than the fact that the person knows it from christianity.

How many people saying these things even thinks of Judas as jewish? (to do so, you need to both know that he was jewish by birth, but also you need to disregard the fact that he had converted to Christianity before the betrayal. And also I suppose you need to disregard that the gospels say he was possessed by the devil. I think to most people being one of the twelve apostles is about as christian as it gets)

And that’s not “tone deafness”, that’s just understanding how the term is generally understood and used, and why it’s in the general lexicon.

If the use of language is deeply embedded enough, and in general use, there’s no need to question its use in sensitive situations?

Jeez, even when he’s gone he’s still producing negative headlines for Labour.

like I said, he was happy on his allotment and working in the local food bank. The people who he beat In 2015 just can’t leave it. It’s not enough that he’s gone and they back in control (although possibly with not the wrong leader). They want revenge and they want it at any cost, including it would seem the bankruptcy of the party.

The pay out was to prevent bankrupting the party, and to draw a line under this mess… Corbyn and others no longer at the top of the party just had to keep quiet about it.

You might wish to question its use. Accusing anyone using it of having a “loud dog whistle” then repeatedly jumping on them out in the same way, not so reasonable. You’ve been pretty aggressive about this, and absolutely dismissive of both Daz and my responses. “no excuses”, “tone deaf”.

(and big and daft suggesting it should be a banning offence ffs)

I questioned the use of the phrase in the context it was. And I’m being piled on for doing so. Which I find odd to be honest. There is no way I would refer to Judas or pieces of silver when referring to anyone involved in a row over antisemitism, and it find it very odd that anyone would. And also odd that people would defend doing so in the manner you and Dazh have.