I pray to God that @anon7035031 would go back to forecasting the stock market or perhaps spend more time cooking in his kitchen and leave @Sidney alone.
I fear my prayers will fall on deaf ears.
God bless you all.
A Ruddy mess.
He is.
But that’s sort of a mandatory job qualification for a Tory Home Secretary.
But even some former Tories can recognise blatant moral cowardice when they see it.
I don’t know if any of you here subscribe to Popbitch. It’s a newsletter from London that tells celebrity gossip that they can’t say in the papers. It had the Beckham/Loos story, the Jimmy Saville story and so on before they broke in the mainstream. A lot of it is just dirt about celebrity’s sexual habits and the size of their cocks and so on. It’s sort of open source; the public just e-mail in with their dirt on celebs. A lot of contributors work in media or PR.
Anyway, they talk a lot about paedos on the Tory party and in particular how there was an active nonce in Thatcher’s cabinet that gave Maggie no end of grief. They named that lad eventually, but I can’t find that post. Here’s an e-mail from Popbitch from 5 years ago I’m after finding:-
"This month marks seven years since PB legend Reverend_Goatboy’s death. Despite the passage of time, the stories he told have dominated the news in recent weeks. Jimmy Savile and corpses? Goatboy story. Rolf Harris up to no good? Goatboy story. Wherever he is, we’re sure he’s enjoying the last laugh.
For old times’ sake, another tall tale he liked to tell went like this:
“Seems that a former Tory minister, when he had to stay in his constituency, chose the local aristocrat’s gaff. One night the aristo is paddling down the corridor when he hears cries from his 12-year-old son’s room. Going in, he finds the Tory minister hanging out of his son. He promptly hits the panic button. It being the aristo, when the alarm sounds at the nick the ****ing lot show up - choppers and all (high alert at time re IRA). First plod on the scene piles in and the aristo says, “Arrest that bastard!” The copper recognises the Tory minister, and knocks it upstairs sharpish. A few more shunts and it’s Maggie on the blower saying leave it, she’ll sort it. And the Tory minister was whisked off to work in a reduced role. One wonders what hold they have over the aristo, eh?”
1 Like
Peter Oborne completely savages Tom Bower’s book about Jeremy Corbyn here.
Bower’s book and article in the Sunday TImes two weeks ago is the sort of outright lies and propaganda that is taken as gospel by those out to take down Corbyn.
Of course they would - the book is specifically designed to do just that.
You don’t have to support Jeremy Corbyn to see what’s happening (Oborne is a Tory supporter), you just have to take truth seriously.
Which those out to get Corbyn never do.
Alan Duncan is a Tory MP, and is a Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Europe and the Americas.
Yet unusually for a Tory, he has a balanced, nuanced position on the Israel-Palestine situation.
For which he was the target of an attempted “take down” (their words) by Israel.
Sir Alan, who has described expanding Israeli settlements as a “stain on the face of the globe”, was seen as more of a problem than Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson - who was “basically good”, according to Mr Masot in a transcript of the conversation.
Sir Alan launched a scathing attack on Israel in 2014, when MPs backed Palestinian statehood, deeming Israeli settlements as an “act of theft”.
“Occupation, annexation, illegality, negligence, complicity - this is a wicked cocktail which brings shame on Israel,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme.
Sir Alan, who was special envoy to Yemen and Oman at the time, said “international law must be upheld” to prevent further settlements.
Now, if Alan Duncan was the target of a take down by Israel, one can pretty reasonably guess what sort of tactics Israel would be willing to engage in to take down Jeremy Corbyn.
And still some people here deny that such smear campaigns go on.
This is the sort of utterly blinkered, ultra-propagandist mentality you’re dealing with when you engage with a few select posters on this forum.
Shush, this won’t suit the “narrative”.
Cleverly is some gobshite
COMPILATION
OF ECRI’S GENERAL
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 75: https://rm.coe.int/compilation-of-ecri-s-general-policy-recommendations-march-2018/16808b7945
Key elements of national legislation
against racism and racial discrimination
I. Definitions
- For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following definitions
shall apply :
a) “racism” shall mean the belief that a ground such as race, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin
justifies contempt for a person or a group of persons, or the
notion of superiority of a person or a group of persons.
b) “direct racial discrimination” shall mean any differential
treatment based on a ground such as race, colour, language,
religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin, which has no
objective and reasonable justification. Differential treatment has
no objective and reasonable justification if it does not pursue a
legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of
proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought
to be realised.
Isn’t that @anon7035031’s line, contending that a group is “not a race” and so can’t be subject to racism? Nice to see other people getting to have a good laugh at that too.
What does the phrase "a group is not a race " mean?
He’s changed his definition of racism numerous times to suit whatever crazed far right agenda he’s been spewing at the time.
If you criticise Israel, for instance, apparently that’s anti-Semitic, which is anti-Judaism, which is racism.
Never mind that he frequently spews out genuinely anti-Semitic shit which deliberately conflates Jews with Israel. That’s an actual neo-Nazi “talking point”.
But if you absolutely vilify Muslims and call for all Islam to be banned, it can’t be racism, because Islam is not a race. Or something.
Shambolic, dishonest and fraudulent doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Is “rooted in racism” a good enough catch all phrase? What if a Sikh gets attacked because someone thinks he’s a Buddhist? What then?
You’re using words but I can’t tell if you’re trying to say something.
That’s ok. You’ve enough to deal with trying to start imaginary chainsaws
That’s more of it now.
Just go and listen to the discussion. You’re capable of understanding it, I have faith in you!
No, these are simple concepts to understand, even for a dullard like @glasagusban and an ideological headcase like yourself.
A race is a group of humans with biological features viewed as distinct by society. Racism is treating people differently because of these differences, and should always be condemned. There should be no prejudice against people based on this skin color or other physical features. In the above context how could you, or anyone else, distinguish a white Muslim from a white Christian? Or a black Christian from a black Muslim for that matter? The answer is of course you have no idea. Muslims only share one characteristic, which is Islam.
Ideology is something to be worried about though, you see alt-right views as the greatest danger to the human race, and are clearly prejudiced against anyone you see as supporting such opinion (even when they don’t, your prejudice seems to be based on race as in hate for white men, self loathing in other words). Fundamentalist Islam appears less of a threat for you, even though it is responsible for most terrorist attacks globally, and responsible for the worst abuses of human rights, especially towards women.
Nobody should be discriminated against because of their race, dangerous ideology such as fundamentalist Islam or any other ideology that calls for discrimination based on race should be condemned for what it is, racism.
You’re completely wrong, you dope.
Why are you incapable of more than a trivial sentence?
Why do you write reams of gibberish?