[Politics] Labour reinstates Jeremy Corbyn after suspension over antisemitism remarks

[WATFORD zero]

Interesting how a thread about the ex-leader of the Labour party thread who resigned nearly a year ago makes the main board whilst the PPE untendered contract that made the Spanish 'fixer' 21 Million pounds in the last few weeks doesn't.

Now I am no fan of either Corbyn or the Labour party, but I know what would happen if I started a thread that questioned the current Government.

*edit* I'll start one to see

 

[The Clamp]

To use a boxing analogy, Corbyn should have stayed down. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that this whole antisemitism smear campaign was an exercise in fictionalised whataboutery designed to discredit the party and to buy the Tories more time in power to inflate their personal fortunes.
Conveniently gave the more extreme right wing Tory supporters a chance to point the finger and feel better about their own racism. That’s probably not what the Tories intended, they don’t give tinker’s curse what their supporters get up to as long as they vote Tory and keep the Sterling rolling into their coffers.

And we all know that’s the truth.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Does make you wonder who's running the show?

I did my voting for the national executive last week. There were seven or eight on the ballot who started their statement with 'I support Kier Starmer'. They all got my vote. Those that didn't mention Starmer did so by a mix of stupidity and design. There was certainly a 'no compromise with the electorate' contingent. But I don't recall any of them mentioning Corbyn.

The answer to your question is Starmer.

Corbyn is now irrelevant. He didn't harm labour when he was a back bencher, voting against labour policies. As a fully qualified failure, he now has the reach of a penguine.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To use a boxing analogy, Corbyn should have stayed down. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that this whole antisemitism smear campaign was an exercise in fictionalised whataboutery designed to discredit the party and to buy the Tories more time in power to inflate their personal fortunes.
Conveniently gave the more extreme right wing Tory supporters a chance to point the finger and feel better about their own racism. That’s probably not what the Tories intended, they don’t give tinker’s curse what their supporters get up to as long as they vote Tory and keep the Sterling rolling into their coffers.

And we all know that’s the truth.

I agree with most of that....and yet I disagree. There very certainly was antisemitism, and Corbyn failed to fix it.

I won't re-post the whole joke again, but 'Taffy Jones' wan't called 'chippy' despite of all the carpentry he did around town; he was known, because of just the one sheep, as....you can guess the rest.

If a few Jewish labour members of longstanding call 'antisemitism' then it is them, and only them, who have the right to make the judgement. It matters not how many other people, including jewish labour members, claim to have heard nothing.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I did my voting for the national executive last week. There were seven or eight on the ballot who started their statement with 'I support Kier Starmer'. They all got my vote. Those that didn't mention Starmer did so by a mix of stupidity and design. There was certainly a 'no compromise with the electorate' contingent. But I don't recall any of them mentioning Corbyn.

The answer to your question is Starmer.

Corbyn is now irrelevant. He didn't harm labour when he was a back bencher, voting against labour policies. As a fully qualified failure, he now has the reach of a penguine.

Fairly dos, I take that on board.

What's the thinking here then 'H', what's to gain by the reinstatement?

 

[The Clamp]

I agree with most of that....and yet I disagree. There very certainly was antisemitism, and Corbyn failed to fix it.

I won't re-post the whole joke again, but 'Taffy Jones' wan't called 'chippy' despite of all the carpentry he did around town; he was known, because of just the one sheep, as....you can guess the rest.

If a few Jewish labour members of longstanding call 'antisemitism' then it is them, and only them, who have the right to make the judgement. It matters not how many other people, including jewish labour members, claim to have heard nothing.

Fair point. Let’s adjust it to there was a tiny few Labour Party members who could be described as antisemitic and the Tories and their thicker supporters blew it up to gain advantage. As any party would. However, voters need to be more canny than that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Labour shoot themselves in the foot once again, I'll bet Johnson can't believe his luck.

What a bunch of cvnts we have both running the country and pretending to be the Opposition...

Ludicrous to lump Starmer together with Boris.

As ludicrous as lumping Bloom in with Parish, or Netanyahu in with Hitler.

 

[jakarta]

To use a boxing analogy, Corbyn should have stayed down. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that this whole antisemitism smear campaign was an exercise in fictionalised whataboutery designed to discredit the party and to buy the Tories more time in power to inflate their personal fortunes.
Conveniently gave the more extreme right wing Tory supporters a chance to point the finger and feel better about their own racism. That’s probably not what the Tories intended, they don’t give tinker’s curse what their supporters get up to as long as they vote Tory and keep the Sterling rolling into their coffers.

And we all know that’s the truth.

Oh Dear, do you actually know any Labour Functionaries at any level of Government?

I did as my Brother and thankfully ex-Sister in Law were both local Councillors and we had to suffer the company of their 'Comrades' for a few years when we socialised.

Apart from being, on the whole, thick as pig shit they followed the Corbyn Line about Israel and Palestine and believe you me they didn't think Auschwitz was that big a deal. ****ing horrible people but then again living in Bury probably does that to you.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Fair point. Let’s adjust it to there was a tiny few Labour Party members who could be described as antisemitic and the Tories and their thicker supporters blew it up to gain advantage. As any party would. However, voters need to be more canny than that.

Yes, I agree with that.

At least Corbyn now sounds contrite. I think his main shortcoming is he's not very bright. He's probably been told to stay contrite or else. I doubt he has the brains to do so, but we shall see. I bit like a mad uncle who goes on about 'darkies' after a second wee dram.

The nice thing is this doesn't matter now. Those who would never vote labour will be taking out a small onion and, through their faux tears, emoting about how let down they feel, now that Corbyn is now only a hair's breadth away from a shadow cabinet position in charge of the promotion of militant Islam. They can, however, just **** off.

 

[The Clamp]

Oh Dear, do you actually know any Labour Functionaries at any level of Government?

I did as my Brother and thankfully ex-Sister in Law were both local Councillors and we had to suffer the company of their 'Comrades' for a few years when we socialised.

Apart from being, on the whole, thick as pig shit they followed the Corbyn Line about Israel and Palestine and believe you me they didn't think Auschwitz was that big a deal. ****ing horrible people but then again living in Bury probably does that to you.

I would imagine any antisemite, whatever their political allegiances lay, are foul human beings that I would not wish to be near. However, that was not my point. I never claimed anti semites are anything but abhorrent.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Oh Dear, do you actually know any Labour Functionaries at any level of Government?

I did as my Brother and thankfully ex-Sister in Law were both local Councillors and we had to suffer the company of their 'Comrades' for a few years when we socialised.

Apart from being, on the whole, thick as pig shit they followed the Corbyn Line about Israel and Palestine and believe you me they didn't think Auschwitz was that big a deal. ****ing horrible people but then again living in Bury probably does that to you.

We have all come across some nobbers. I have had a similar conversation about Israel with someone in my family. I always point out that I've been to Israel more than once whereas he knows **** all about it.

But as I say, that doesn't allow anyone to conflate Starmer with Boris. Boris is a shamelss shit. Starmer is a scrupulous servant of the nation.

The comrades are finished. If we hold our nerve, Boris will be gone after one shameful term. Just like Trump.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I can see you are mobilizing for a generation in opposition.

Labour under Starmer in power would be a second string tory party in power - tweedledum and tweedledee

 

[Weststander]

To use a boxing analogy, Corbyn should have stayed down. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that this whole antisemitism smear campaign was an exercise in fictionalised whataboutery designed to discredit the party and to buy the Tories more time in power to inflate their personal fortunes.
Conveniently gave the more extreme right wing Tory supporters a chance to point the finger and feel better about their own racism. That’s probably not what the Tories intended, they don’t give tinker’s curse what their supporters get up to as long as they vote Tory and keep the Sterling rolling into their coffers.

And we all know that’s the truth.

Please don’t fall into blinkered party political thinking, your own whataboutery.

The independent EHRC investigation, commissioned by Labour, found antisemitism, antisemitism not investigated and political interference in the handling of complaints.

“Unlawful acts
Our investigation found that the Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents in two of the complaints we investigated. These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears.

As these people were acting as agents of the Labour Party, the Labour Party was legally responsible for their conduct.”

The smear campaign line you glibly use was the line perpetrated by antisemites in the 2015 to 2019 Labour Party. Starmer, the new Labour leadership, those who spoke out about it at the time and the EHRC have no connection to the Tory Party or Daily Mail, far from it.

Who’s now arguing that the EHRC are liars?

 

[Is it PotG?]

We have all come across some nobbers. I have had a similar conversation about Israel with someone in my family. I always point out that I've been to Israel more than once whereas he knows **** all about it.

But as I say, that doesn't allow anyone to conflate Starmer with Boris. Boris is a shamelss shit. Starmer is a scrupulous servant of the nation.

The comrades are finished. If we hold our nerve, Boris will be gone after one shameful term. Just like Trump.

Starmer is what?

There is no foundation for this, only supposition and political bias.

Until we have policies and direction, his aims are unclear.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Labour under Starmer in power would be a second string tory party in power - tweedledum and tweedledee

Fair enough. Good luck in your pursuit of socialist purity.

 

[Weststander]

Labour under Starmer in power would be a second string tory party in power - tweedledum and tweedledee

We don’t know what Labour’s policies will be in 2024, give them time.

 

[Live by the sea]

To use a boxing analogy, Corbyn should have stayed down. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that this whole antisemitism smear campaign was an exercise in fictionalised whataboutery designed to discredit the party and to buy the Tories more time in power to inflate their personal fortunes.
Conveniently gave the more extreme right wing Tory supporters a chance to point the finger and feel better about their own racism. That’s probably not what the Tories intended, they don’t give tinker’s curse what their supporters get up to as long as they vote Tory and keep the Sterling rolling into their coffers.

And we all know that’s the truth.

If this is what you genuinely think after all the evidence presented at the inquiry Clamp , then I’m afraid to say that - You are part of the problem . Unbelievable.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Starmer is what?

There is no foundation for this, only supposition and political bias.

Until we have policies and direction, his aims are unclear.

Do some research @PotG. Starmer did't just drop out of the sky, or out of John Smith's (RIP) bottom, one fine spring morn.


In July 2008, Attorney General Baroness Scotland of Asthal named Starmer as the new Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Director of Public Prosecutions; he took over from Ken Macdonald on 1 November 2008.[23] Macdonald, himself a former defence lawyer, publicly welcomed the appointment.[11] Starmer was considered to be bringing a focus on human rights into the legal system.[18]

Within the first few months of his tenure, Starmer upheld the decision not to prosecute the officers who had killed Jean-Charles de Menezes in a High Court appeal lodged by the family. de Menezes was shot dead by police in 2005 after he was mistaken for a suicide bomber. The reviewing lawyer said that no new evidence had been presented to the inquest which would make him reconsider the earlier decision not to prosecute more senior officers for negligence. Mr de Menezes’s cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, said "we are all in shock and simply cannot understand how the deliberate killing of an innocent man and an attempt by the Metropolitan police to cover it up does not result in a criminal offence."[24] The family then gave up on pursuing charges and nobody has been charged with the death of Mr de Menezes.[25]

Later in 2009, when the Conservative Party proposed repealing the Human Rights Act, Starmer defended it as a "clear and basic statement of our citizen's human rights".[26] Liberty and the Liberal Democrats supported Starmer, while the Conservative MP David T. C. Davies suggested that he should be sacked.[27] In the same year, he called for the CPS to modernise by being more open to scrutiny and less reliant on paper files.[28] In 2011, he would introduce reforms that included the "first test paperless hearing".[29]

In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[30] They were all found guilty.[31] In the same year, he also supported proposals to legally recognise different degrees of murder.[32] In 2010, and 2012, Starmer said that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute two members of the UK security services for their alleged role in torture overseas, but supported further investigation.[33] In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson; this led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up.[34] After a subsequent inquest found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer announced that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter. The officer was acquitted in July 2012 by a jury, but dismissed from the police that September.[35][36][37] In December 2010, Starmer changed the decision process to require his personal approval to prosecute women who withdraw accusations of rape.[38] He later produced guidelines to prevent the same women from being unfairly prosecuted.[39]

During the 2011 riots, Starmer prioritised rapid prosecutions of rioters over long sentences, which he later thought had helped to bring “the situation back under control.”[40] Later that year, after revelations concerning the undercover police infiltration of environmental campaigns, Starmer ordered a review of related convictions and invited protestors convicted of aggravated trespass to appeal their sentences.[41] Starmer declined to authorise a wider enquiry, after a report from the judge Christopher Rose found the issue to be a result of individual fault rather than a systemic problem.[42]

In February 2012, Starmer announced that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, would be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. Huhne became the first Cabinet Minister in British history to be compelled to resign as a result of criminal proceedings.[43] Starmer had previously said in relation to the case that "[w]here there is sufficient evidence we do not shy away from prosecuting politicians".[44] Later that year, he wrote advice for prosecutors, saying that they should consider whether violent protestors organised or prepared for violence, compared to protestors who got "caught up in illegal actions".[45] In the summer of 2012, journalist Nick Cohen published allegations that Starmer was personally responsible for allowing to proceed the prosecution of Paul Chambers in what became known as the "Twitter Joke Trial". Chambers’ conviction of sending a message "of a menacing character" was quashed after a third appeal. The CPS denied that Starmer was behind the decision, saying that it was the responsibility of a Crown Court and was out of Starmer's hands.[46] Later that year, Starmer published a plan for the criminal justice system to better handle cases of female genital mutilation, an offence which at the time had never been successfully prosecuted.[47] At the end of 2012, he published guidance on prosecuting cases of grossly offensive posts on social media that called for caution in prosecuting cases, and considering whether users quickly removed posts or showed remorse.[48][49]

In 2013, Starmer announced changes to how sexual abuse investigations would be handled in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, including a panel to review historic complaints.[50][51] In the same year, he published a study showing that false reports of rape were rare, saying that the "devastating impact of false allegations" and the perception that they're more common than the data support mean that police forces might adopt a "cautious" approach that can "lead to injustice for victims".[52] He also started an inquiry into the cause of a reduction in police reports of rape and domestic abuse.[53] In the same year, he altered guidelines for those improperly claiming benefits enabling them to face ten years in prison under the Fraud Act.[54]

Starmer left office in November 2013, and was replaced by Alison Saunders.[55][56] Later that month, the Labour Party announced that Starmer would lead an enquiry into changing the law to give further protection to victims in cases of rape and child abuse.[57] On 28 December, he said to BBC News he was "rather enjoying having some free time" and "considering a number of options".[58] There was speculation at the time that he would stand as a Labour Party candidate for Parliament.[59]

It's called a hinterland.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Kier is hardly a Tory light , have you looked into his voting history & views.

True - he is not a 'Tory light' - he is a full blown tory just of the pro-EU imperialist kind.

But yes you are right he is not an extreme lefty who prefers the company of Putin , various South American dictators & assorted terrorist groups .

Pray tell - the 'company of Putin' in comparison to what? - and which 'South American dictators'? - oh - and which 'terror groups' ?

I assume that you are talking about Corbyn here - and the questions apply. Me - I am a more 'extreme lefty' than Corbyn and I oppose Putin, I oppose all dictators and I am opposed to all 'terror groups' (no matter where on the political spectrum they lie).

The country including the majority working class rejected heavily that type of labour leader even preferring daft Johnson to the Corbyn option . That should tell you something .

'heavily rejected' - no they didn't - Corbyn got more votes than any of the Blairites this century - including Blair himself. Labour lost the election in 2019 because Corbyn caved-in to the utterly daft approach to Brexit - a strategy developed by Starmer and designed to ensure that a Corbyn led LP would lose. Corbyn should have done what Starmer is now doing - removed the Blairites from positions of power in the LP and implemented mandatory reselection for all LP MPs. Starmer is now systematically removing the left-wing MPs (in an undemocratic fashion) and engaging in a wholesale witch hunt of anyone in the LP to the left of Rachel 'I will be tougher at slashing benefits than the Tories' Reeves.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Do some research @PotG. Starmer did't just drop out of the sky, or out of John Smith's (RIP) bottom, one fine spring morn.


In July 2008, Attorney General Baroness Scotland of Asthal named Starmer as the new Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Director of Public Prosecutions; he took over from Ken Macdonald on 1 November 2008.[23] Macdonald, himself a former defence lawyer, publicly welcomed the appointment.[11] Starmer was considered to be bringing a focus on human rights into the legal system.[18]

Within the first few months of his tenure, Starmer upheld the decision not to prosecute the officers who had killed Jean-Charles de Menezes in a High Court appeal lodged by the family. de Menezes was shot dead by police in 2005 after he was mistaken for a suicide bomber. The reviewing lawyer said that no new evidence had been presented to the inquest which would make him reconsider the earlier decision not to prosecute more senior officers for negligence. Mr de Menezes’s cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, said "we are all in shock and simply cannot understand how the deliberate killing of an innocent man and an attempt by the Metropolitan police to cover it up does not result in a criminal offence."[24] The family then gave up on pursuing charges and nobody has been charged with the death of Mr de Menezes.[25]

Later in 2009, when the Conservative Party proposed repealing the Human Rights Act, Starmer defended it as a "clear and basic statement of our citizen's human rights".[26] Liberty and the Liberal Democrats supported Starmer, while the Conservative MP David T. C. Davies suggested that he should be sacked.[27] In the same year, he called for the CPS to modernise by being more open to scrutiny and less reliant on paper files.[28] In 2011, he would introduce reforms that included the "first test paperless hearing".[29]

In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[30] They were all found guilty.[31] In the same year, he also supported proposals to legally recognise different degrees of murder.[32] In 2010, and 2012, Starmer said that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute two members of the UK security services for their alleged role in torture overseas, but supported further investigation.[33] In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson; this led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up.[34] After a subsequent inquest found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer announced that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter. The officer was acquitted in July 2012 by a jury, but dismissed from the police that September.[35][36][37] In December 2010, Starmer changed the decision process to require his personal approval to prosecute women who withdraw accusations of rape.[38] He later produced guidelines to prevent the same women from being unfairly prosecuted.[39]

During the 2011 riots, Starmer prioritised rapid prosecutions of rioters over long sentences, which he later thought had helped to bring “the situation back under control.”[40] Later that year, after revelations concerning the undercover police infiltration of environmental campaigns, Starmer ordered a review of related convictions and invited protestors convicted of aggravated trespass to appeal their sentences.[41] Starmer declined to authorise a wider enquiry, after a report from the judge Christopher Rose found the issue to be a result of individual fault rather than a systemic problem.[42]

In February 2012, Starmer announced that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne and his former wife, Vicky Pryce, would be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. Huhne became the first Cabinet Minister in British history to be compelled to resign as a result of criminal proceedings.[43] Starmer had previously said in relation to the case that "[w]here there is sufficient evidence we do not shy away from prosecuting politicians".[44] Later that year, he wrote advice for prosecutors, saying that they should consider whether violent protestors organised or prepared for violence, compared to protestors who got "caught up in illegal actions".[45] In the summer of 2012, journalist Nick Cohen published allegations that Starmer was personally responsible for allowing to proceed the prosecution of Paul Chambers in what became known as the "Twitter Joke Trial". Chambers’ conviction of sending a message "of a menacing character" was quashed after a third appeal. The CPS denied that Starmer was behind the decision, saying that it was the responsibility of a Crown Court and was out of Starmer's hands.[46] Later that year, Starmer published a plan for the criminal justice system to better handle cases of female genital mutilation, an offence which at the time had never been successfully prosecuted.[47] At the end of 2012, he published guidance on prosecuting cases of grossly offensive posts on social media that called for caution in prosecuting cases, and considering whether users quickly removed posts or showed remorse.[48][49]

In 2013, Starmer announced changes to how sexual abuse investigations would be handled in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, including a panel to review historic complaints.[50][51] In the same year, he published a study showing that false reports of rape were rare, saying that the "devastating impact of false allegations" and the perception that they're more common than the data support mean that police forces might adopt a "cautious" approach that can "lead to injustice for victims".[52] He also started an inquiry into the cause of a reduction in police reports of rape and domestic abuse.[53] In the same year, he altered guidelines for those improperly claiming benefits enabling them to face ten years in prison under the Fraud Act.[54]

Starmer left office in November 2013, and was replaced by Alison Saunders.[55][56] Later that month, the Labour Party announced that Starmer would lead an enquiry into changing the law to give further protection to victims in cases of rape and child abuse.[57] On 28 December, he said to BBC News he was "rather enjoying having some free time" and "considering a number of options".[58] There was speculation at the time that he would stand as a Labour Party candidate for Parliament.[59]

It's called a hinterland.

Research, as you well know at Uni for example, is far more than a big copy/paste.

Any student presenting that without interpretation and context, I'm sure you are fully aware, would be ridiculed and rightly so.