Red Ken suspended
Discussion
RottenIcons said:
know the iconography of Hitler as a pure unrelenting devil with no redeeming features of any shape or kind is a comforting one for many but it is fundamentally wrong and by continuing to deny the fact just sends more people who have the inkling something is amiss toward the right.
I don't mind that as it suits my agenda,
Quoted, for posterity. I don't mind that as it suits my agenda,
Edited by RottenIcons on Friday 29th April 07:47
Joey Ramone said:
RottenIcons said:
know the iconography of Hitler as a pure unrelenting devil with no redeeming features of any shape or kind is a comforting one for many but it is fundamentally wrong and by continuing to deny the fact just sends more people who have the inkling something is amiss toward the right.
I don't mind that as it suits my agenda,
Quoted, for posterity. I don't mind that as it suits my agenda,
Edited by RottenIcons on Friday 29th April 07:47
VolvoT5 said:
Having listened / read what Ken said........ he sounds a bit off his trolley but I'm struggling with the cries of racism and anti-Semitism. What he said was insensitive perhaps but I don't think backing up a colleague that criticised Israel is the same thing as being anti-Semitic.
All the MPs lining up to call him names and demand he be suspended were extremely organised in their attack and most of them just happen to be those on the 'right' of the Labour party and some of the biggest opponents of Corbyn. I can't help but wonder if this is not the start of a coup to get rid of Corbyn. A proxy war I guess.
It is all a bit silly really. They are going to damage the Labour 'brand' so much that it becomes unelectable under any leader.
He didn't back a colleague for her criticism of Israel he backed a colleague that stated all the Jews in Israel should be removed and sent to America effectively .Im not sure how anyone can not construe this as anti semitism.All the MPs lining up to call him names and demand he be suspended were extremely organised in their attack and most of them just happen to be those on the 'right' of the Labour party and some of the biggest opponents of Corbyn. I can't help but wonder if this is not the start of a coup to get rid of Corbyn. A proxy war I guess.
It is all a bit silly really. They are going to damage the Labour 'brand' so much that it becomes unelectable under any leader.
If one suggested that all Muslims be packed off from the uk to Pakistan for example surely that is racist ?
And the hitter quote maybe accurate,but he used it to link Zionism with the nazis ,that was his intent .
Bearing in mind his previous form,comparing a Jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guArd,and proclaiming he didn't want Jewish support because all Jews were rich.Supporting an anti Semitic statement and then trying to associate Zionism And the nazis is beyond stupid.
franki68 said:
He didn't back a colleague for her criticism of Israel he backed a colleague that stated all the Jews in Israel should be removed and sent to America effectively .Im not sure how anyone can not construe this as anti semitism.
If one suggested that all Muslims be packed off from the uk to Pakistan for example surely that is racist ?
And the hitter quote maybe accurate,but he used it to link Zionism with the nazis ,that was his intent .
Bearing in mind his previous form,comparing a Jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guArd,and proclaiming he didn't want Jewish support because all Jews were rich.Supporting an anti Semitic statement and then trying to associate Zionism And the nazis is beyond stupid.
+1If one suggested that all Muslims be packed off from the uk to Pakistan for example surely that is racist ?
And the hitter quote maybe accurate,but he used it to link Zionism with the nazis ,that was his intent .
Bearing in mind his previous form,comparing a Jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guArd,and proclaiming he didn't want Jewish support because all Jews were rich.Supporting an anti Semitic statement and then trying to associate Zionism And the nazis is beyond stupid.
VolvoT5 said:
ll the MPs lining up to call him names and demand he be suspended were extremely organised in their attack and most of them just happen to be those on the 'right' of the Labour party and some of the biggest opponents of Corbyn. I can't help but wonder if this is not the start of a coup to get rid of Corbyn. A proxy war I guess.
It is all a bit silly really. They are going to damage the Labour 'brand' so much that it becomes unelectable under any leader.
You reckon it's a coup? Crazy if it is. It's over nothing with traction, if it is the start of something they've made a big mistake I would think, for various reasons. Sorts like Mann must think if they shout loud enough and get people excited then facts can be obscured and what they charge is the truth of the matter blustering their way through it. I wonder if cooler heads and ore temperate minds will prevail?It is all a bit silly really. They are going to damage the Labour 'brand' so much that it becomes unelectable under any leader.
franki68 said:
He didn't back a colleague for her criticism of Israel he backed a colleague that stated all the Jews in Israel should be removed and sent to America effectively .Im not sure how anyone can not construe this as anti semitism.
If one suggested that all Muslims be packed off from the uk to Pakistan for example surely that is racist ?
Without going into the ins and outs surely what he did there was back someone who admitted she'd made a mistake?If one suggested that all Muslims be packed off from the uk to Pakistan for example surely that is racist ?
If you cant support someone who admits theyve gone wrong its a sad world.
Can you only support people who cant do that?
But this incident was another level - he's been hung out to dry for saying something thats correct
The beeb is now reporting the party wants these things dealt with quicker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36166555
Nothing wrong with doing it quicker, but if you shoot the wrong person rather than try to check whats actually been said isnt that a worse outcome?
Also I asked earlier why semitism and anti semitism seem to be the opposite sense to racism and anti racism
Anyone know why?
franki68 said:
He didn't back a colleague for her criticism of Israel he backed a colleague that stated all the Jews in Israel should be removed and sent to America effectively .Im not sure how anyone can not construe this as anti semitism.
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.It's PC gone mad.
It's interesting that some don't seem to be able to tell the difference between legitimate criticism of the Israeli government, and agreeing and defending the idea of transporting a group of people out of their country, and then referencing Hitler to do so.
If I thought the same people would defend and deflect Ukip man talking about transporting Muslims out of the UK to solve what they see as a problem, then I might cut you some slack ( not that I should ), but something tells me you would be rather clearer that its a vile view and you should not be an MP with that view, and wouldn't have the Alex Salmond approach of trying to cut her some slack.
Its an odd thing the same people trying to offer diversions for Naz Shah are the same people who in a debate on immigration who actively try and blur the difference between legitimate concerns and criticisms of immigration into it being racism and always coming from a vile view of people.
If I thought the same people would defend and deflect Ukip man talking about transporting Muslims out of the UK to solve what they see as a problem, then I might cut you some slack ( not that I should ), but something tells me you would be rather clearer that its a vile view and you should not be an MP with that view, and wouldn't have the Alex Salmond approach of trying to cut her some slack.
Its an odd thing the same people trying to offer diversions for Naz Shah are the same people who in a debate on immigration who actively try and blur the difference between legitimate concerns and criticisms of immigration into it being racism and always coming from a vile view of people.
FredClogs said:
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.
It's PC gone mad.
It was not tongue in cheek .It's PC gone mad.
You know the song..'from the Jordan to the sea,Palestine will be free' , a moderated version of the original ..'throw the Jew into the sea then Palestine will be free'
saaby93 said:
ithout going into the ins and outs surely what he did there was back someone who admitted she'd made a mistake?
If you cant support someone who admits theyve gone wrong its a sad world.
Can you only support people who cant do that?
But this incident was another level - he's been hung out to dry for saying something thats correct
The beeb is now reporting the party wants these things dealt with quicker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36166555
Nothing wrong with doing it quicker, but if you shoot the wrong person rather than try to check whats actually been said isnt that a worse outcome?
Also I asked earlier why semitism and anti semitism seem to be the opposite sense to racism and anti racism
Anyone know why?
He was not defending her admitting she made a mistake.If you cant support someone who admits theyve gone wrong its a sad world.
Can you only support people who cant do that?
But this incident was another level - he's been hung out to dry for saying something thats correct
The beeb is now reporting the party wants these things dealt with quicker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36166555
Nothing wrong with doing it quicker, but if you shoot the wrong person rather than try to check whats actually been said isnt that a worse outcome?
Also I asked earlier why semitism and anti semitism seem to be the opposite sense to racism and anti racism
Anyone know why?
franki68 said:
FredClogs said:
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.
It's PC gone mad.
It was not tongue in cheek .It's PC gone mad.
You know the song..'from the Jordan to the sea,Palestine will be free' , a moderated version of the original ..'throw the Jew into the sea then Palestine will be free'
But maybe I'm just reading it the way I want to, though I have no vested interest either way, I'm certainly not over sensitive to the topic as some people seem to be.
franki68 said:
He was not defending her admitting she made a mistake.
I have to admit to not fully knowing what went on there as it's a separate issueAll I know is she said something some years back which may or may not have been true, shes apologised for it and Ken said in the TV interview something like she'd gone over the top
Do we need to dissect what happened there too?
Or just keep to what happened here?
FredClogs said:
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.
It's PC gone mad.
Great excuse for anyone, that - ' oh I wasn't being vile, just tongue in cheek you silly delicate petals'. It's PC gone mad.
Mr_B said:
FredClogs said:
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.
It's PC gone mad.
Great excuse for anyone, that - ' oh I wasn't being vile, just tongue in cheek you silly delicate petals'. It's PC gone mad.
FredClogs said:
Mr_B said:
FredClogs said:
Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.
It's PC gone mad.
Great excuse for anyone, that - ' oh I wasn't being vile, just tongue in cheek you silly delicate petals'. It's PC gone mad.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff