"There are people on the left." That is the strawman It's like me saying that there are fans of teams who are based in North London who are racist against people from the Far East. Sure, somebody could immediately point to that fat, bald twat from AFTV's comments about Son last season, or bring up the conspiracy theory a fair number of them are citing saying Ozil has been dropped to appease Chinese fans...and that's what nandy;s doing, not naming names but there's only one conclusion to make What really stands out about Nandy is she honestly comes across as the Labour equivalent of Priti Patel, as she has the exact same combination of cluelessness and nastiness whenever she speaks, while also begging the question why she isn't hidden away so she doesn't regularly get a platform to speak to demonstrate this.
That's not a strawman. It's entirely accurate. The report names names, which is what she's addressing. She doesn't have to do it herself. Nobody's talking about Momentum. Ken Livingstone and someone far less noteworthy.
No, it's a strawman, because "there are fans of teams who are based in North London" could just as easily mean Spurs and Barnet, but making up a group and letting people fill in the gaps (i.e. fat, bald twat off AFTV) is what Nandy;s doing here Also, a cursory glance on Twitter will tell you that plenty of people are using Momentum to fill in the gap that Nandy created, with Gnasher's two most trusted lieutenants doing so since lunchtime
One that went a bit far recently was that the BBC was forced to pull a trailer for a documentary on Pistorius because it didn't mention Reeva Steenkamp. This is the trailer you understand, not the documentary itself which hasn't even aired yet. Of course there's a problem if the documentary itself doesn't mention her, or somehow justifies the action, but otherwise I would suggest the outcry at this stage is somewhat excessive.
That's not actually why they pulled he trailer, though The reason they scrubbed the trailer is because the original trailer from when the did aired on ESPN did mention Steenkamp's name, meaning that the BBC edited her name out On a wider scale, it does have to be said this is an issue of true crime docs in general, where the killer gets the lion's share of the focus and the victims are an afterthought - which is particularly noticeable with serial killer docs, where outside of Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson and Andrew Cunanan (two out of three for obvious reasons) people can't name a single victim of theirs And I do have to say the trailer also looked more than a little similar to one for Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, which drew criticism about 18 months ago for showing Ted Bundy in a good light, which was clearly the point to show that Bundy was charming and manipulative which is how nobody believed he could be a serial killer...but the fact that we've gone from discussing Oscar Pistorius to Ted Bundy sort of underlines the point
Nope. They're explicitly exempt, for some reason. That's good virtue signalling or something. The fact that they used that phrase says it all.
How is that Starmer's fault? If he hadn't have done anything (and he actually didn't), then Corbyn still would've been the headline. His reaction is what did it, not the fallout from it.
Starmer himself said this morning that the "rule" Corbyn broke was...issuing a statement before the Leader had spoken If that's grounds for suspension, Jess Phillips would have been booted from the party three years ago
Leaving aside the fact that Corbyn shouldn't have done that, where did Starmer says this? That's not what he was suspended for.
He said it this morning Also, nice of Keir to pack three easily debunked comments into the space of five seconds
That quote doesn't say what you're claiming it does. It mentions nothing about him breaking any rules, nor that he was suspended for doing so.
Given the finding below by the EHRC I would have thought the only proper action by Corbyn would be to resign from the Labour party. "Political interference The EHRC found evidence of political interference in the complaints process, with 23 instances of inappropriate involvement by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) and others in the 70 files looked at. This included LOTO staff influencing decisions on complaints, especially decisions on suspensions or to investigate a claim. Some decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any formal criteria. The Labour Party adopted a practice of political interference in certain complaints and the evidence indicates that it occurred more regularly in antisemitism cases. The EHRC has found this to be indirectly discriminatory and unlawful. The practice puts the person making a complaint of antisemitism at a disadvantage as they could face different and detrimental treatment and a risk that their complaint would not be handled fairly."
Corbyn's behaviour yesterday was appalling. It reminds me of the ex Head of the Metropolitan police, Sir Paul Condon. From April to September 1993 he denied that his officers did anything wrong in the Stephen Lawrence case. He refused to accept they had lied about facing a "wall of silence", that his officers screwed up the investigation lost evidence and spent more time harassing local anti racist campaigners than the racist murders. Then as the "Welling Unity Demo" approached he spent the week slagging off protestors. After the police attacked the demo he lied through his teeth about his officers being the victims and how they were attacked and racially abused. For the next 6 years he denied all reports of his officers incompetence, (at best) or racism or corruption despite all the evidence to the contrary. After the Macphearson report he denied the Metropolitan police were institutionally racist and denied any wrong doing. Corbyn is not a racist but there were clearly instances of anti Semetic behaviours within the labour party. They existed before his leadership and continued during it. Anti Semetic abuse and behaviour is equally appalling to all forms of racism yet as a mixed raced man of Caribbean background I do not believe that (under Corbyn's leadership) the Labour party would have responded to accusations of colour based racism with the same ineptitude and defensiveness as they did with the issue of anti Semetic abuse and behaviours. I am on the left, consider myself a socialist, have a long track record of being an active anti racist, have been a trade union member all my working life, a campaigner for Palestinian rights and against Israel's breaking of UN rules etc. so am no friend of Starmer's. However, I fail to see how he is responsible for this cluster **** lunacy.
At what point does he say anything about Corbyn's suspension, let alone the reason for it? Schneider's further comment seems to be quite accurate, too:
What's telling how those supporting Starmer have gone from "Starmer suspended Corbyn, like a true leader would " to "Well...actually, it was General Secretary David Evans and Chief Whip Nick Brown who made the call, which is party policy" in the space of a few hours, almost as if they realise that either a.) The entire situation is a complete ****ing mess b.) Claiming that Starmer made the call is a lot closer to home than they want to admit c.) It finally dawned on them that, after years of complete nonsense of "Stalinist purges" from the Daily Mail and FBPE mob alike, in the space of less than six months there's now four examples of so-called "purges" from their centrist hero Keir Starmer The best defence that I have seen for Starmer's Not Starmer, Honest's actions is to claim that he wanted to have a fresh start, by saying that all the claims of antisemitism is in the past (which is the ****ing point, but that's not important right now...) and he didn't want them bubbling up again and again, and that was taken away from him...an argument that would have more credence if you ignore who was in attendance for his press conference yesterday which could best be described as a baying mob who showed the same amount of decorum as the audience for The Jeremy Kyle Show, and it also begs the question how many of his previous press conferences have The Jewish Chronicle been invited to, which makes it look like a fit-up job, especially considering... Check the date Also, as I've said before (especially after a Grauniad piece in September claiming that nothing will stick to him), but Starmer seems to believe that he's exempt from Narratives being used against him, and that's already been proven to be demonstrably false as not only was the complete bollocks of him protecting Jimmy Saville doing the rounds within 24 hours of him being named leader, but the Mail in particular have been running a Narrative about him defending terrorists since February, and of course now he's going to get questions about how much he knew about antisemitism in the party - and the fact is Corbyn's statement can't be blamed for that, because he was always going to be asked these questions, but so far he's come across as not being prepared for them
