• Hiya Guest,

    You are invited to take part in this seasons Prediction League, where the object of the game is to pick the outcome of all SPL games

    Full Details are here. Prediction Pick Em Competition

    We also have a Prize 'Pool', with full details here

    If you have entered you can dismiss this as you are awesome!

Derek Hatton rejoins Labour Party...

HenryLB

Donator
Private Member
Bounce Radge
The point I'm making is that those doing so have not repeatedly been called racists. Indeed the very media and politicians deliberately obscuring the difference between anti-Israel and anti-Semitism are often the ones attacking Muslims for not marching against terrorism.


I think there is a complete lack of balance in the attention given to this and I think it is political. Christ one of the breakaway MPs uses terms about funny tinged people and after 12 hours its put down to her being tired. The Goldsmith campaign has never been condemned by the Tory Party and the media pretty much schtoom about it. The suspension of racist Tory Councillors then let back into the party and not a dicky bird. If you can't see an issue here I don't think you're looking hard enough.


Its not that they are being weaponized by opponents but that they are taken as fact when those opponents mention them that I have a problem with. And the lack of Jewish voices on the other side is equally problematic. Jewish Voice for Labour get very little attention for example, but the conservative Jewish groups are taken as speaking for all Jews.
Just reads as whataboutery to me. Sorry.
 

HenryLB

Donator
Private Member
Bounce Radge
Its called context henry old bean
Ok. But this is a discussion about something Hatton wrote that I'm pointing out is against the Labour party's code of conduct on antisemitism - a rulebook written by the current party authorities, not by Blairite plotters or centrists or some other group of imaginary fifth columnists.

You're widening the focus of that conversation in order to - what? Inform me that newspapers are often indisposed towards left wingers? With respect, that strikes me as rather a banal point. And the only other reason I can see for providing this kind of 'context' is in order to minimise the charge at hand.
 

Gareth

Radge Donator
Radge Donator
Bounce Radge
Oh ok, so the rules on discussion boards is that you can never write anything that diverges in the slightest from the original post, so comments about Galloway above should also be removed. That's nonsense Henry and I think you know it. lack of context means that you accept racists shouting racist at someone at face value, lack of context means that when you responded to Big G and tried, unwittingly or not, to give the impression that Corbyn had driven you away from the Labour Party we should ignore that very recently you were a card carrying Tory. So on the former, when Trump calls Spike Lee a racist we ignore Trumps racism, on the latter we just accept that you are a good Labour man whose party has left him. You don't see the problem in any of this Henry?
The very first think I said on this thread was that I agreed with you about hatton, so there is no minimising on my part, contextualizing yes, minimising no.
 

FTJT

Active Member
Bounce Radge
I don't think it's whataboutery to point out that rules and policies are being selectively enforced.

The point isn't that antisemitism is fine, it's that, if other forms of bigotry are being held to a more relaxed standard, is it possible that the difference in treatment has less to do with antiracism and more to do with politics?


e: to be clear, this is in the context of thinking fuck Derek Hatton and fuck what he said about Jews.
 

GORDONSMITH7

**** The Gunts
Administrator
Flag Owner
Radge Donator
Bounce Radge
Player Sponsor
Lewis Flag Donator
Monthly Radge
Ladies Player Sponsor
Gray Boot Sponsor
I don't think it's whataboutery to point out that rules and policies are being selectively enforced.

The point isn't that antisemitism is fine, it's that, if other forms of bigotry are being held to a more relaxed standard, is it possible that the difference in treatment has less to do with antiracism and more to do with politics?


e: to be clear, this is in the context of thinking fuck Derek Hatton and fuck what he said about Jews.
Deary me dinnae go down the 'fuck what he said about Jews' road that the Establishment have consistently insinuated, groundlessly against Corbyn. Hatton nor Corbyn have ever in a million fucking years been anti Semetic, nor ever will be. It may suit the media owned by Billionares. Others should just grow up.

BIG G
 

FTJT

Active Member
Bounce Radge
Hatton's a prick and demanding Jews apologise for Israel isnae on.

The more concerning point for me is the volume of sitting MPs who've made the same demands of British Muslims without facing blowback. Because either the political classes are fine with institutional bigotry as long as it's against Muslims, or they don't give a shit about institutional bigotry whatsoever but will weaponise it to throw mud at the left, or both. And all of those options are shit.
 

GORDONSMITH7

**** The Gunts
Administrator
Flag Owner
Radge Donator
Bounce Radge
Player Sponsor
Lewis Flag Donator
Monthly Radge
Ladies Player Sponsor
Gray Boot Sponsor
Hatton's a prick and demanding Jews apologise for Israel isnae on.

The more concerning point for me is the volume of sitting MPs who've made the same demands of British Muslims without facing blowback. Because either the political classes are fine with institutional bigotry as long as it's against Muslims, or they don't give a shit about institutional bigotry whatsoever but will weaponise it to throw mud at the left, or both. And all of those options are shit.
He didnae ask Jews to apologies for Israel. Speaking out against murderous agression is neither apologising nor anti semetic. Less we forget 6 years after Hatton's comments, , less than a year ago over 160 men ,women and children were slaughtered and some 10,000 injured by the brutal reactionary forces of the Israeli State in Gaza.
Gareth is right. The shite on a daily basis over the past 3 years, against Jeremy Corbyn on the unrepresentitive Jewish Chronicle if not only inaccurate and would be would be laughable. However the kept Tory anti Labour movement press regularly reproduce it without sourcing back.
Right wing Benjamin Netanyahu in an unprecedented move attacked Corbyn personally. Jeremy you must be doing something right regarding the Palestinians.

BIG G
 

HenryLB

Donator
Private Member
Bounce Radge
Oh ok, so the rules on discussion boards is that you can never write anything that diverges in the slightest from the original post, so comments about Galloway above should also be removed. That's nonsense Henry and I think you know it. lack of context means that you accept racists shouting racist at someone at face value, lack of context means that when you responded to Big G and tried, unwittingly or not, to give the impression that Corbyn had driven you away from the Labour Party we should ignore that very recently you were a card carrying Tory. So on the former, when Trump calls Spike Lee a racist we ignore Trumps racism, on the latter we just accept that you are a good Labour man whose party has left him. You don't see the problem in any of this Henry?
The very first think I said on this thread was that I agreed with you about hatton, so there is no minimising on my part, contextualizing yes, minimising no.
There are different kinds of context and these are different kinds of context. But by all means let's explore why you're introducing this 'relevant background' to the discussion. You think that what Hatton said is antisemitic but... but what? We should't accept people shouting racist at him at face value? We are not. We should submit their claims to scrutiny? They have been.

Specifically, what has Trump to do with Hatton's accusers? The context you want us to see seems to be that sometimes people call others racist with no foundation. I can only assume you're implying that that might be happening here. Otherwise why raise it?

The analogy is weird anyway because in the Hatton instance 'Trump' is 'the Labour Party'. If you're saying we need to exhaustively vet every accuser rather than the evidence at hand then you'll need to begin with Labour and its rules, which I'm not sure is worth more than a cursory viewing.

And when you say that the history of my political affiliation is important in considering how to assess my replies you're suggesting I have an ulterior motive. But that has no bearing on whether what happened was actually antisemitic or not. So again, you seem to be providing 'context' - by delving into my history - to try to call into question the charge. But what Hatton said and whether it's racist stands and falls on its merits. What use is your context other than to diminish that?
 

HenryLB

Donator
Private Member
Bounce Radge
He didnae ask Jews to apologies for Israel. Speaking out against murderous agression is neither apologising nor anti semetic. Less we forget 6 years after Hatton's comments, , less than a year ago over 160 men ,women and children were slaughtered and some 10,000 injured by the brutal reactionary forces of the Israeli State in Gaza.
Gareth is right. The shite on a daily basis over the past 3 years, against Jeremy Corbyn on the unrepresentitive Jewish Chronicle if not only inaccurate and would be would be laughable. However the kept Tory anti Labour movement press regularly reproduce it without sourcing back.
Right wing Benjamin Netanyahu in an unprecedented move attacked Corbyn personally. Jeremy you must be doing something right regarding the Palestinians.

BIG G
Why do Jews need to speak out? Why them, specifically?
 

HenryLB

Donator
Private Member
Bounce Radge
I don't think it's whataboutery to point out that rules and policies are being selectively enforced.

The point isn't that antisemitism is fine, it's that, if other forms of bigotry are being held to a more relaxed standard, is it possible that the difference in treatment has less to do with antiracism and more to do with politics?


e: to be clear, this is in the context of thinking fuck Derek Hatton and fuck what he said about Jews.
Can you give an example of this selective enforcement within the Labour party? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I haven't seen that. Antisemitism is newsworthy because there are a lot of people in Labour who tolerate the kind of thing that Hatton said, as shown, sadly, by this thread.
 

Gareth

Radge Donator
Radge Donator
Bounce Radge
There are different kinds of context and these are different kinds of context. But by all means let's explore why you're introducing this 'relevant background' to the discussion. You think that what Hatton said is antisemitic but... but what? We should't accept people shouting racist at him at face value? We are not. We should submit their claims to scrutiny? They have been.
Overall this is a pretty desperate response Henry, it really is. People are accepting at face value accusations of racism, these accusations are not being scrutinised. And its pretty obvious why i'm introducing context, because accusations of racism where they do not exist are being used as political weapons by bonafide racists. I think that matters, you obviously don't.

Specifically, what has Trump to do with Hatton's accusers? The context you want us to see seems to be that sometimes people call others racist with no foundation. I can only assume you're implying that that might be happening here. Otherwise why raise it?
Its pretty clear Henry, Trump is an example of a racist accusing others of racism and was a big story in the media at the point I introduced Trump to the discussion. And yes I am saying, not implying, that there are many cases re antisemitism where racists (for example in the Tory Party) are accusing non and anti-racists of racism.

The analogy is weird anyway because in the Hatton instance 'Trump' is 'the Labour Party'. If you're saying we need to exhaustively vet every accuser rather than the evidence at hand then you'll need to begin with Labour and its rules, which I'm not sure is worth more than a cursory viewing.
Its not weird, is an example of racists shouting racism. And I'm not suggesting vetting every accuser, I'm suggesting examining the accusation primarily but also providing a bit of context.

And when you say that the history of my political affiliation is important in considering how to assess my replies you're suggesting I have an ulterior motive. But that has no bearing on whether what happened was actually antisemitic or not.
So again, you seem to be providing 'context' - by delving into my history - to try to call into question the charge. But what Hatton said and whether it's racist stands and falls on its merits. What use is your context other than to diminish that?
That comment was not related to antisemitism, it was related to a comment you made that were it not for the context you had provided in previous posts some time ago would have suggested that you were a good and long-standing Labour man who'd been chased out of the party you love. It was, as I think you are perfectly well aware, a means of highlighting the importance of context.
 

HenryLB

Donator
Private Member
Bounce Radge
Overall this is a pretty desperate response Henry, it really is. People are accepting at face value accusations of racism, these accusations are not being scrutinised. And its pretty obvious why i'm introducing context, because accusations of racism where they do not exist are being used as political weapons by bonafide racists. I think that matters, you obviously don't.
The accusation is literally being officially scrutinised by the Labour Party! And in the media, and, er, even by us if we could ever focus on it and not some broad-brush generality. Can you explain how you would like this scrutiny to be performed if not in the manner in which it is? Because it comes across as though you're setting an artificially high bar so you can equivocate.


Its pretty clear Henry, Trump is an example of a racist accusing others of racism and was a big story in the media at the point I introduced Trump to the discussion. And yes I am saying, not implying, that there are many cases re antisemitism where racists (for example in the Tory Party) are accusing non and anti-racists of racism.
Well we must be careful lest we fall into their trap. But I'd appreciate you explaining how we risk doing that with Hatton, specifically.

Its not weird, is an example of racists shouting racism. And I'm not suggesting vetting every accuser, I'm suggesting examining the accusation primarily but also providing a bit of context.
In what situation would you not vet the accuser? One where you are personally satisfied that the offence is definitely racist? Why are you not satisfied that this is the case here?

The 'accuser' in this case is of course the Labour Party. So it'll add a whole layer of complexity if you deem its accusation invalid because the accuser might be racist.


That comment was not related to antisemitism, it was related to a comment you made that were it not for the context you had provided in previous posts some time ago would have suggested that you were a good and long-standing Labour man who'd been chased out of the party you love. It was, as I think you are perfectly well aware, a means of highlighting the importance of context.
Your framing here seems designed to do what I'm suggesting you're trying to achieve with your context above - shoot the messenger so as to minimise the offence. It's also wrong. I said I had been a Labour Member for "quite a while" in response to a baffling assertion that I was a 'liberal' voter. I didn't say anything about being forced out of a party I loved, that's your gloss.

But I still don't get what this 'context' is doing for you. Why is does it exonerate Hatton? If it doesn't why are you providing it?
 

Gareth

Radge Donator
Radge Donator
Bounce Radge
The accusation is literally being officially scrutinised by the Labour Party! And in the media, and, er, even by us if we could ever focus on it and not some broad-brush generality. Can you explain how you would like this scrutiny to be performed if not in the manner in which it is? Because it comes across as though you're setting an artificially high bar so you can equivocate.
The media are not scrutinising and neither is the Labour Party, the are reporting things as anti-semitic, not discussing whether they are anti-semitic. And my view is that the Labour Party are caving in to pressure and I think Williamson is right, the most anti-racist political party in the country is being accused of widespread racism. But given the media onslaught and the manouverings of the Labour right, the party has succumbed to that pressure. I'm not setting a high bar, I'm suggesting that many of the accusations of anti-semitism are false and there is a deliberate conflation of anti-israel or anti-zionism with anti-semitism.
Well we must be careful lest we fall into their trap. But I'd appreciate you explaining how we risk doing that with Hatton, specifically.
At least twice on this thread I've given my view on Hatton, you are choosing to ignore that both here and a further couple of times below. Why?

In what situation would you not vet the accuser? One where you are personally satisfied that the offence is definitely racist? Why are you not satisfied that this is the case here?
I have no power to vet anything Henry old chap, when I hear accusations of racism unless they are made against people with a record of racism I tend to look at what was said rather than accept the view of media and politicians with a political motive outside of any related to racism.

The 'accuser' in this case is of course the Labour Party. So it'll add a whole layer of complexity if you deem its accusation invalid because the accuser might be racist.
In this case I've agreed, is that the fourth time I've said this?

Your framing here seems designed to do what I'm suggesting you're trying to achieve with your context above - shoot the messenger so as to minimise the offence. It's also wrong. I said I had been a Labour Member for "quite a while" in response to a baffling assertion that I was a 'liberal' voter. I didn't say anything about being forced out of a party I loved, that's your gloss.
What messenger am I shooting? What offence am I minimising?
I think there was an implication of you being driven out of the Party in that response, others can judge for themselves.

But I still don't get what this 'context' is doing for you. Why is does it exonerate Hatton? If it doesn't why are you providing it?
Do I need to say it a fifth time? As to why I mention context, as I said above there is a political rationale from both within and outwith the Labour Party to create a sense that the LP is institutionally racist. It is not and the accusation is a disgrace. Hence the need to look at each issue in full. And I say this all as a non Labour supporter.
 

Hibs v Gunts

Harp and Castle Visit Dumbreck Decorators
Visit robertsons garage Visit Frutin Travel
Top