Former London Mayor suspended from party

[Grouse]

Goodness me, the Jews are a tad touchy!

The erudition spouted here on Israeli history is terrific and exceeds the knowledge of any other section of history by an order of magnitude!

Ken, that well known tosser, made an off the cuff comment. So what?

I am not anti Jew anymore than I am anti Christian! BUT I do object to many Israeli actions over the years. Does that make me an anti-Semite? I wouldn't lose any sleep; call me what you like. I consider myself a Jehova's bystander!

These days I feel guilty if I make a comment getting into a lift manufactured by Schindler!

No doubt I'll get beaten around the head and body with a Talmud!

I must say I haven't been to a decent bar mitzvah in yonks......

Schindler's lift, yes that one always makes me smile. As with most things context is everything. What someone says or writes does not necessarily reflect their true views. When you view what someone has written over a period of time and who they consort with gives a far better picture. The EU used to have a list of guidelines defining antisemitism, if you use these as a reference to see how frequently someone's comments would qualify as per EU guidelines you get a good idea, whether you do this with Ken Livingstone's words or indeed those of anyone posting here.

Having said all that Ken Livingstone is as you say a tosser, barely worthy of a thread dedicated to something he said. There is a bigger picture however and that is the rapidly emerging pattern of antisemitism within Corbyn's Labour Party. The predictable deflections are to blame this on Zionists, on disgruntled Blairites or on the right. There is always someone else to blame.

In not sure of who your political allegiances are with, but from your own perspective do you consider Labour has an antisemitism problem and do you think they are perceived to have one?

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1462108531.474489.jpg

European style social democracy is my thing, I suppose. Would probably vote Liberal but felt let down over university fees.

Labour seem to be pro-Muslim even if that makes them anti-Semitic

I do feel that our Jewish friends can be over sensitive. Not so long ago I recommended a book called The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Well the venom and spleen vented on here was astonishing!

Edited May 2, 2016 by Grouse

[Steely Dan]

I agree with George Galloway that this buildup of the anti semitism witch hunt in the Labor Party of the last few months culminating in the orchestrated attack on Ken Lingstone, is really a smokescreen to unseat Jeremy Corbyn.

'They're trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there's a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn'

"They will say with all this chaos, we can't go on like this, we need a new leader."

"This is an entirely synthetic crisis," he said. "Ken Livingstone said absolutely nothing wrong, everything he said was the truth, historic fact, proven."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-george-galloway-ken-livingstone-hitler-comments-historical-fact-a7006321.html

The irony, he who casts aspersions as to other people's sources cites George Galloway. The Independent incidentally has lost so much market share due to its far left shift that it dispensed with its print edition.

When even the Guardian condemns Livingstone you are indeed isolated.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/livingstone-muddies-history-to-support-hitler-and-zionism-claims

The reality is that Livingstone’s latest attempt to defend his comments that “Hitler supported Zionism” in 1932 before going “mad and killing six million Jews” is in line with his previous controversial remarks, invoking dubious history to support his claims.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that Livingstone appears to conflate multiple mistaken notions to suggest Hitler “supported” Zionism – as if at some stage he had felt positively towards a strand of Jewish political thought which even in the 1930s encapsulated different and competing ideas and individuals.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Steely Dan

[dexterm]

I agree with George Galloway that this buildup of the anti semitism witch hunt in the Labor Party of the last few months culminating in the orchestrated attack on Ken Lingstone, is really a smokescreen to unseat Jeremy Corbyn.

'They're trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there's a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn'

"They will say with all this chaos, we can't go on like this, we need a new leader."

"This is an entirely synthetic crisis," he said. "Ken Livingstone said absolutely nothing wrong, everything he said was the truth, historic fact, proven."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-george-galloway-ken-livingstone-hitler-comments-historical-fact-a7006321.html

The irony, he who casts aspersions as to other people's sources cites George Galloway. The Independent incidentally has lost so much market share due to its far left shift that it dispensed with its print edition.

When even the Guardian condemns Livingstone you are indeed isolated.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/livingstone-muddies-history-to-support-hitler-and-zionism-claims

The reality is that Livingstone’s latest attempt to defend his comments that “Hitler supported Zionism” in 1932 before going “mad and killing six million Jews” is in line with his previous controversial remarks, invoking dubious history to support his claims.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that Livingstone appears to conflate multiple mistaken notions to suggest Hitler “supported” Zionism – as if at some stage he had felt positively towards a strand of Jewish political thought which even in the 1930s encapsulated different and competing ideas and individuals.

from your own link

"There is a twisted kernel of truth at the heart of Livingstone’s claims when he alludes to the so-called Haavara (transfer) Agreement, although it took place in 1933 not 1932 as Livingstone suggests."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/livingstone-muddies-history-to-support-hitler-and-zionism-claims

And I know who is doing the twisting of his words.

The interpretation of what Livingstone actually said as I pointed out above hinges on the word "support".

That fact that there is such an enormous fuss about this storm in a teacup indicates there is something fishy going on with Corbyn the real target of the Israeli lobby, as Galloway suggests and I concur.

Apologies for mixed metaphors.

[Morch]

This is what Ken Livingstone actually said about Hitler..

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

He did not say Hitler was a Zionist, as in fully paid up member. He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism", as indeed they were.

"The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

Ken regrets mentioning Hitler because of course the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words, causing such a fuss. But what he said about Hitler's actions in the early 1930s were perfectly true; his collusion with the Zionist Federation of Germany in the transfer agreement did help German Jews to migrate to Palestine at the time.

There were a few links detailing all the inaccuracies with Livingstone's statement. Many others can be found, and (as usual) even the link your provide does not quite prove the claim, but posted to enhance such an impression.

Livingstone's statement is not much different than the posting tactic observed above. A soundbite which gives the impression of being factual, and which skips the complexities of things it alludes to.

The 1932 elections were not quite that clear cut an affair. Hitler's views on Jews and Zionism were aired on Mein Kampf, published prior to 1932. The early Nazi policies and dealings with elements of the Zionist movement in Germany were due to economic constraints. Asserting that as "supporting Zionism" is devoid of any integrity: Zionism in the sense of creating a prosperous Jewish state was not on the Nazi agenda.

1. Ken Livingstone direct quote: "He was supporting Zionism".

2. Dexterm interpretation: "He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism"".

3. Dexterm making it "real": "what he said about Hitler's actions"

4. Obligatory spin: "the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words"

5. Desired QED: Livingstone words being "perfectly true"

Livingstone said what he said. Damage control effort = fail. Altering Livingstone's statement while claiming others twist words is the usual dishonest fare.

Livingstone words being "perfectly true" is an exaggeration at best. But then, nothing out of the norm. And now for the predictable whinging: "nitpicking" (after applying same to Livingstone's words and criticism of), "besmirching" (as if that's not the essence of the above post), overt or hidden claims of "campaign".

Plenty of hot air and obfuscation as usual

Did the Haavara Agreement aka "transfer agreement" between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany signed on 25 August 1933. help/aid/assist/facilitate/support the migration of Jews into Palestine?

Straight yes or no? (but perhaps that's too much to ask of you)

That is the point that Ken Livingstone was making, mind readers notwithstanding.

I don't believe for one minute that the racist monster Hitler was a Zionist, any more than the Zionist Federation of Germany were Nazis. But they were both prepared to sup with their own personal devils to achieve their aims.

As expected.

Confirming previous a observation, both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions. A simple yes or no over complicated explanation. But do go on berating the "appalling scholarship" of others. The issue, by the way, was the subject of a previous topic on TVF, may want to look it up. Or just read one of the latest commentaries, non of them a simple yes or no.

And on with the demagoguery - whinging about "mind readers", while offering personal interpretations of the same text. Ken Livingstone said what he said, and all your spins are simply poor attempts at damage control.

[Rancid]

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

[dexterm]

Dexterm wrote..

Plenty of hot air and obfuscation as usual

Did the Haavara Agreement aka "transfer agreement" between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany signed on 25 August 1933. help/aid/assist/facilitate/support the migration of Jews into Palestine?

Straight yes or no? (but perhaps that's too much to ask of you)

That is the point that Ken Livingstone was making, mind readers notwithstanding.

I don't believe for one minute that the racist monster Hitler was a Zionist, any more than the Zionist Federation of Germany were Nazis. But they were both prepared to sup with their own personal devils to achieve their aims.

Morch replied..

As expected.

Confirming previous a observation, both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions. A simple yes or no over complicated explanation. But do go on berating the "appalling scholarship" of others. The issue, by the way, was the subject of a previous topic on TVF, may want to look it up. Or just read one of the latest commentaries, non of them a simple yes or no.

And on with the demagoguery - whinging about "mind readers", while offering personal interpretations of the same text. Ken Livingstone said what he said, and all your spins are simply poor attempts at damage control.

No mind reading involved at all. No personal interpretations. Ken Livingstone said it himself: "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

What other policies did Hitler have at the time that supported Zionism other than the Haavara (transfer) Agreement? Pray do tell us.

You and the Israeli lobby have clearly and deliberately misinterpreted what he said just to stir up a phony anti Semitism witch hunt.

You also display a poor understanding of the English language.

eg. "Google is supporting the demise of genuine research skills."

does not mean Google approves of the demise of genuine research skills; it simply means de facto that is what is happening with such an easy app.

Similarly, Livingstone clearly stated [Hitler's actions] were supporting Zionism even if it was an unintended or completely indifferent consequence.

[Morch]

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

Sooo....not bothering with "Israeli" or even "Zionist" now? It's the "Jewish lobby", with an out reach that covers "many western political parties".

Not a whiff of antisemitism here, obviously. Just the truth as read in and paraphrased from them Protocols.

[Morch]

Dexterm wrote..

Plenty of hot air and obfuscation as usual

Did the Haavara Agreement aka "transfer agreement" between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany signed on 25 August 1933. help/aid/assist/facilitate/support the migration of Jews into Palestine?

Straight yes or no? (but perhaps that's too much to ask of you)

That is the point that Ken Livingstone was making, mind readers notwithstanding.

I don't believe for one minute that the racist monster Hitler was a Zionist, any more than the Zionist Federation of Germany were Nazis. But they were both prepared to sup with their own personal devils to achieve their aims.

Morch replied..

As expected.

Confirming previous a observation, both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions. A simple yes or no over complicated explanation. But do go on berating the "appalling scholarship" of others. The issue, by the way, was the subject of a previous topic on TVF, may want to look it up. Or just read one of the latest commentaries, non of them a simple yes or no.

And on with the demagoguery - whinging about "mind readers", while offering personal interpretations of the same text. Ken Livingstone said what he said, and all your spins are simply poor attempts at damage control.

No mind reading involved at all. No personal interpretations. Ken Livingstone said it himself: "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

What other policies did Hitler have at the time that supported Zionism other than the Haavara (transfer) Agreement? Pray do tell us.

You and the Israeli lobby have clearly and deliberately misinterpreted what he said just to stir up a phony anti Semitism witch hunt.

You also display a poor understanding of the English language.

eg. "Google is supporting the demise of genuine research skills."

does not mean Google approves of the demise of genuine research skills; it simply means de facto that is what is happening with such an easy app.

Similarly, Livingstone clearly stated [Hitler's actions] were supporting Zionism even if it was an unintended or completely indifferent consequence.

Lets see:

Only your interpretation of Livingstone's statement is valid, other are "mind reading".

Sources critical of Livingstone's statements are dismissed as exhibiting "appalling scholarship" or bias. Quoting Galloway and selective Wikipedia bits are alright.

Ken Livinsgstone's on record history of antisemitic statements and associations is ignored, as if the current incident was an isolated case.

Whinging about pedantry is alright if directed one way, not acceptable otherwise.

Yep, as expected.

[Grouse]

Who cares?

It was an off the cuff comment. Unwise? Probably. Offensive? Slightly. Sacking offence? Give over!

Freedom of speech please

We all say loads of off colour things I'm quite sure

So what?

[Steely Dan]

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

Sooo....not bothering with "Israeli" or even "Zionist" now? It's the "Jewish lobby", with an out reach that covers "many western political parties".

Not a whiff of antisemitism here, obviously. Just the truth as read in and paraphrased from them Protocols.

You would have thought the 'Jewish lobby' would have got better value for money considering Labour fund a 'charity' called Interpal (like interflora but say it with knives rather than say it with flowers). Interpal are involved in direct incitement to attack Israelis with knives. Jeremy Corbyn is prominently pictured on their literature. So the Labour knowingly donates money to a charity that incites violence against Jews. Nothing antisemitic to see here please move on.

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/28/interpal-joins-labours-storm/

I guess the money was really paid to Interpal by Zionists posing as Labour Party members just to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.

[dexterm]

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

Sooo....not bothering with "Israeli" or even "Zionist" now? It's the "Jewish lobby", with an out reach that covers "many western political parties".

Not a whiff of antisemitism here, obviously. Just the truth as read in and paraphrased from them Protocols.

You would have thought the 'Jewish lobby' would have got better value for money considering Labour fund a 'charity' called Interpal (like interflora but say it with knives rather than say it with flowers). Interpal are involved in direct incitement to attack Israelis with knives. Jeremy Corbyn is prominently pictured on their literature. So the Labour knowingly donates money to a charity that incites violence against Jews. Nothing antisemitic to see here please move on.

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/28/interpal-joins-labours-storm/

I guess the money was really paid to Interpal by Zionists posing as Labour Party members just to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.

Poor attempt at deflection with a bogus story about a British Charity Commission approved organization and this from a man who constantly urges us to stay on topic.

All part of the Israeli lobby smear campaign that attacked Ken Livingstone in the OP, and now apparently Jeremy Corbyn too, as was suspected as the real target all along.

Jump up and down, make enough noise, throw enough mud and the Israeli lobby hopes some of it will stick enough to distract readers from the great Israeli hoax: they play the victim when they are in fact the aggressor.

The one thing Israel cannot defeat militarily is the truth. The whole world is watching this time via the international and social media.

[Morch]

Labour is well funded by the Jewish lobby, as are many western political parties, obviously with the desired outcome of squashing any criticism and bribing pro-Israel policies.

I do find it odd though, antisemitism is a bit overzealous, but in our PC world criticising anybody is now a hate crime. What I don't get is how criticising a countries actions or foreign policy is also regarded as such, the stand out being Israel.

"To silence criticism is to silence freedom" - US philosopher Sidney Hook.

Sooo....not bothering with "Israeli" or even "Zionist" now? It's the "Jewish lobby", with an out reach that covers "many western political parties".

Not a whiff of antisemitism here, obviously. Just the truth as read in and paraphrased from them Protocols.

You would have thought the 'Jewish lobby' would have got better value for money considering Labour fund a 'charity' called Interpal (like interflora but say it with knives rather than say it with flowers). Interpal are involved in direct incitement to attack Israelis with knives. Jeremy Corbyn is prominently pictured on their literature. So the Labour knowingly donates money to a charity that incites violence against Jews. Nothing antisemitic to see here please move on.

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/28/interpal-joins-labours-storm/

I guess the money was really paid to Interpal by Zionists posing as Labour Party members just to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.

Poor attempt at deflection with a bogus story about a British Charity Commission approved organization and this from a man who constantly urges us to stay on topic.

All part of the Israeli lobby smear campaign that attacked Ken Livingstone in the OP, and now apparently Jeremy Corbyn too, as was suspected as the real target all along.

Jump up and down, make enough noise, throw enough mud and the Israeli lobby hopes some of it will stick enough to distract readers from the great Israeli hoax: they play the victim when they are in fact the aggressor.

The one thing Israel cannot defeat militarily is the truth. The whole world is watching this time via the international and social media.

So a documented story is "bogus", while your conspiracy theory is the truth.

Complaining about Labour politicians being victims of a smear campaign, whinging about alleged use of victim card.

It's a wonder it took "just 70 posts for the usual slogans to appear, even when they are not even on topic. No, that you postulate an imaginary campaign does not make it so.

Btw, seems agitated posters tend to confuse their definitions. Now it isn't even the usual "Zionist Hoax" but an all encompassing "Israeli hoax". Just a step away from Rancid, a few posts up the topic. Well done.

[Steely Dan]

^^

Indeed if it is a Zionist plot to discredit Labour it's a very successful one, yet another resignation, it won't be the last seeing as Labour is well represented by third world Muslim antisemites as well as the far left variety, just a tad less nuanced.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/02/labour-councillor-israel-behind-isis-zionist-jews-are-a-disgrace-to-humanity/

P.,S the frantic tapping sound is that of leftist activists deleting anything incriminating from social media. Perhaps they should relax, allege besmirchment and challenge the press to find any dirt.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

The Jew haters in Labour "conspire" against themselves.

Interesting company this Jeremy Corbyn keeps:

Edited May 2, 2016 by Jingthing

[teatree]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

So you agree that Naz Shah's inflammatory proposal to relocate Israel to the United States is actually defensible?

Well, I find it hateful and atrocious.

Sure, it's something a nasty obsessive Israel demonizing troll would post on the comments section on the internet.

But it gets a little different when you're dealing with public officials, don't you think?

And plenty of Muslims find the creation of Israel and what they consider to be an occupation of Palestinian land as atrocious and indefensible, not I that agree with Shah's comments at all.

You hold views that others find outrageous, and others hold views that you find outrageous - just live with it.

Edited May 3, 2016 by teatree

[Morch]

So you agree that Naz Shah's inflammatory proposal to relocate Israel to the United States is actually defensible?

Well, I find it hateful and atrocious.

Sure, it's something a nasty obsessive Israel demonizing troll would post on the comments section on the internet.

But it gets a little different when you're dealing with public officials, don't you think?

And plenty of Muslims find the creation of Israel and what they consider to be an occupation of Palestinian land as atrocious and indefensible, not I that agree with Shah's comments at all.

You hold views that others find outrageous, and others hold views that you find outrageous - just live with it.

That difference between a private person and an elected official public figure while expressing views.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Morch

[Mosha]

There goes the muslim vote.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[SheungWan]

Who cares?

It was an off the cuff comment. Unwise? Probably. Offensive? Slightly. Sacking offence? Give over!

Freedom of speech please

We all say loads of off colour things I'm quite sure

So what?

The mere suggestion that Ken Livingstone made 'an off the cuff comment' is a pretty poor attempt at spin and the desperate attempts to rescue Ken from his comments go on and on, even to the extent of one contributor inadvertently adding to the nonsense by trying to rope in the thoroughly despicable George Galloway, another one who's smell is too much for the Labour Party. Just in case anybody has forgotten about the origin of Ken Livingstone's remarks it was a attempt to provide some spin cover of his own to deflect from Naz Shah's own nastiness for which she has subsequently been suspended. So what have we got here now? 3 individuals among others suspended from the Labour Party and in response forum contributors moving into overdrive and now it all tumbles out: 'the Jewish lobby', 'freedom of speech' and the best of all 'so what?'. Poor Jeremy that he is being forced to deal with the poisonous outpourings.

[Jingthing]

But wait. There's more:

[SheungWan]

But wait. There's more:

More importantly as far as Ken is concerned is why Ken refuses to explain why he brought up his historical references in response to answering the criticisms of Naz Shah. Not surprising really. The other part of where he hangs himself is his suggestion that Hitler went mad only after his apparent conversion to Zionism. So why did Ken do it? No question it was dog whistle politics for the Islamist crowd. A copy-cat of George Galloway type antics. Only what he didn't expect with that silly smug smile of his was that someone would stand up to be counted and confront Ken for what he was really up to. That man was John Mann MP. No wonder even Jeremy had to jettison Livingstone and a cast of others.

Edited May 5, 2016 by SheungWan

[Grouse]

Who cares?

It was an off the cuff comment. Unwise? Probably. Offensive? Slightly. Sacking offence? Give over!

Freedom of speech please

We all say loads of off colour things I'm quite sure

So what?

The mere suggestion that Ken Livingstone made 'an off the cuff comment' is a pretty poor attempt at spin and the desperate attempts to rescue Ken from his comments go on and on, even to the extent of one contributor inadvertently adding to the nonsense by trying to rope in the thoroughly despicable George Galloway, another one who's smell is too much for the Labour Party. Just in case anybody has forgotten about the origin of Ken Livingstone's remarks it was a attempt to provide some spin cover of his own to deflect from Naz Shah's own nastiness for which she has subsequently been suspended. So what have we got here now? 3 individuals among others suspended from the Labour Party and in response forum contributors moving into overdrive and now it all tumbles out: 'the Jewish lobby', 'freedom of speech' and the best of all 'so what?'. Poor Jeremy that he is being forced to deal with the poisonous outpourings.

I can't abide Ken. However, he has the right to spout off however he likes. All this PC don't offend the Jews is ridiculous. We all get offended by loads of stuff. There were two huge dark Thai women in my local American bar last night playing rap "music". I was seriously offended. So much so that I didn't finish my beer. Mike the Jew also left (he's gay as well by the way)

As I say, who cares?

[Morch]

Who cares?

It was an off the cuff comment. Unwise? Probably. Offensive? Slightly. Sacking offence? Give over!

Freedom of speech please

We all say loads of off colour things I'm quite sure

So what?

The mere suggestion that Ken Livingstone made 'an off the cuff comment' is a pretty poor attempt at spin and the desperate attempts to rescue Ken from his comments go on and on, even to the extent of one contributor inadvertently adding to the nonsense by trying to rope in the thoroughly despicable George Galloway, another one who's smell is too much for the Labour Party. Just in case anybody has forgotten about the origin of Ken Livingstone's remarks it was a attempt to provide some spin cover of his own to deflect from Naz Shah's own nastiness for which she has subsequently been suspended. So what have we got here now? 3 individuals among others suspended from the Labour Party and in response forum contributors moving into overdrive and now it all tumbles out: 'the Jewish lobby', 'freedom of speech' and the best of all 'so what?'. Poor Jeremy that he is being forced to deal with the poisonous outpourings.

I can't abide Ken. However, he has the right to spout off however he likes. All this PC don't offend the Jews is ridiculous. We all get offended by loads of stuff. There were two huge dark Thai women in my local American bar last night playing rap "music". I was seriously offended. So much so that I didn't finish my beer. Mike the Jew also left (he's gay as well by the way)

As I say, who cares?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/913530-former-london-mayor-suspended-from-party/?p=10706491

[Jingthing]

Oh boy.

Another one:

Labour member suspended for claiming Jews commit ‘genocide’ in UK

East Londoner Musabbir Ali wrote blog post arguing that ‘Jews control Britain and are committing genocide on us’

http://www.timesofisrael.com/labour-member-suspended-for-claiming-jews-commit-genocide-in-uk/

[Jingthing]

More on this topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-britain-anti-semitism-endures/2016/06/10/2e0825c0-2e64-11e6-b5db-e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Of the fighting faiths that flourished during the ideologically drunk 20th century, anti-Semitism has been uniquely durable. It survives by mutating, even migrating across the political spectrum from the right to the left. Although most frequently found in European semi-fascist parties, anti-Semitism is growing in the fetid Petri dish of American academia and is staining Britain’s Labour Party.

[Jingthing]

Recent interview relating to historical pro-Zionism and antisemitism in the U.K. left --