Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's best to wait for the actual EU proposal.

The language is pretty significant, though.

I think Ketara posted an excellent point the other day. 2 years ago, if we had pushed the EEA/EFTA route in cooperation with say, sympathetic countries like Denmark, made it clear that this wasn't personal, that we still wanted to deal with the EU, whilst retaining more sovereignty, but that we had serious concerns about freedom of movement and further integration, we could have had the 2 speed Europe.

Actually there is nothing really new here looking at the details to resolving any of the fundamental issues currently being talked over. In fact your sudden support for this would in fact just leave the UK as part of the EU but just not a first tier member which seems relatively pointless. I think it's slightly grasping at straws to think that in any way we think we are gaining ground here.

Barnier has previously stated in 2017 that he was aiming for the most ambitious future partnership and free trade agreement

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/eus-preference-is-ambitious-trade-deal-with-uk-barnier-says.html

which is no different to saying that "we are prepared to offer Britain a partnership such as there never has been with any other third country"

Macron's comments are also nothing new. The reports are that he wants to see concentric circles of membership of the EU. Basically the rule givers and the rule takers. We would be in the latter section. This is no different to what his vision for the EU has been for sometime. Macron is indeed just using Wrexit as a way of forwarding his vision of the EU. To persuade the UK to be part of the second tier EU then they are suggesting some compromises on security (e.g. easier access to Galilieo, still not full access and retaining the European Arrest Warrant which would be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well).

https://www.businessinsider.com/macron-is-prepared-to-throw-may-a-brexit-lifeline-and-stop-britain-crashing-out-without-a-deal-2018-8?IR=T

What I find amusing is the anti-EU press and others seem to be running with the bone that in some way the EU is capitulating - which is so far from what is happening it is laughable. In effect they are offering something less than what we already have and wanted to continue with whilst still playing to all the EU rules. Even a full FTA means that in effect we would have to be compliant with EU rules. There is nothing here that means that they are going to compromise on the customs union; a comprehensive FTA is very poor compared to this as you still have all the delays and paperwork, the only difference is there is no tax, but you still have evidence compliance. Its offering a few areas as breadcrumbs to make us think we are 'winning' whilst in the end really getting exactly what they want.

However it will also have blindsided those in the UK saying it would be the EU's fault with no deal. They have hit that ball well and truly back into the UK's side of the court. As ever our negotiating team is being very weak. But please go ahead and think they are losing if it makes people sleep better.

A Canada+ with some unique features would qualify as a unique deal without necessarily sacrificing any of the four freedoms.

I still don't see how the NI border is going to work, but maybe the EU offering will be X on the basis that the UK has to find a way to make X work in terms of Ireland.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it's best to wait for the actual EU proposal.

The language is pretty significant, though.

Indeed it is. It very carefully says nothing we don't already know.

More details...

Brexit warning -- it is not the Universal Panacea.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A Canada+ with some unique features would qualify as a unique deal without necessarily sacrificing any of the four freedoms.

I still don't see how the NI border is going to work, but maybe the EU offering will be X on the basis that the UK has to find a way to make X work in terms of Ireland.

Place controls around all of English/Scottish ports but outside them. No border between NI/Eire and DUP can't complain because the borders are between two areas of England / Wales / Scotland not on the Irish sea between NI and the rest of the UK.

"But Barnier last uttered these words on 2 August during a press conference in Brussels in which he forensically tore apart the prime minister’s white paper, warning that its ideas on a new customs arrangement and trade in goods represented a threat to the integrity of the EU."

Yeah. Right. And certain person here keeps deluding himself EU will wreck itself by changing core 4 principles. Those aren't budging. So maybe Brits can get discount for fees on new improved deal but if they want to be single market they will play by the EU rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"

Ouch. He was one of the ones to nominate Corbyn originally. He's one of the few respectable names Labour have left.

That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.

If people think Labour is antisemitic they have never seen real antisemitism.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"

And definitely not to do with the vote of no confidence against him in his local party after he voted with the Tory party on Wrexit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.

I suppose it is worth debating whether this is the case. So to start lets just accept that the comments are crass in terms of applying a view to a group of people. Assuming we are referencing the 'irony' with regards zionists comment and I've not missed something else whilst travelling. However my understanding is that zionism is a movement where the jewish people should have their own state. However you don't need to be jewish to hold zionist views (there have been public christian and muslim zionists, post zionism is meant to represent a state for all its peoples etc). Indeed its only since 1991 that the UN stopped considering zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. In comparison having a negative view on the jewish as a people would be anti-semitism. From my understanding the meeting was with a palestinian representative who also want their own state for their people to live how they want. There would be an irony if an organisation associated with zionism wanted to resist that principle as that would be what they also stand for (its the same thing once you consider a neutral perspective that its a group of people). The error was to call out all 'zionists' as that implies they are resistant to such an idea and as ever it puts a group of people into the same category - in reality he should have called out individuals or specific groups. However as zionist doesn't necessarily mean the person is jewish is it possible to consider it an anti-semetic comment?

 Ketara wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"

Ouch. He was one of the ones to nominate Corbyn originally. He's one of the few respectable names Labour have left.

That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.

So where’s the media outrage at the overt racism, homophobia and general bile in the Tory ranks?

It’s almost as if this whole thing is just a shoddy smear campaign....

Come on now Doc, we know you're a Corbanite, you've said so yourself. But you have to admit that even if he isn't anti-Semite, he's destroyed any credibility of being a possible leader. This whole fiasco was a golden chance for him to show strong leadership and nip this whole problem in the bud right from the start. But he's let it drag on, floundering around like a beached cod with his fingers stuck in his ears and basically destroyed what little credibility he had left.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"

And definitely not to do with the vote of no confidence against him in his local party after he voted with the Tory party on Wrexit?

Birkenhead voted for Brexit, so that's not it. Momentum have tried to deselect him before, so the 'no confidence' is just another ploy in trying to get rid of another non-Corbynista. In that I guess they have succeeded, and he's decided to go out making a statement. funny in a way as he is a bit like JC in that he is a permanent rebel - unhappy with being in a top post and getting more reward from campaigning against his own party from the wings.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Come on now Doc, we know you're a Corbanite, you've said so yourself. But you have to admit that even if he isn't anti-Semite, he's destroyed any credibility of being a possible leader. This whole fiasco was a golden chance for him to show strong leadership and nip this whole problem in the bud right from the start. But he's let it drag on, floundering around like a beached cod with his fingers stuck in his ears and basically destroyed what little credibility he had left.

It remains a shoddy smear campaign. All the while BoJo is courting the far right, and Little is said (indeed, gutter press support was given)

There’s something rotten in our political system, and it’s not Jeremy Corbyn. It’s the cosy little right wing cartel, all lying and supporting each other.

As I think I've said before, for all the campaign of smear, Corbyn could defuse it by taking decisive action on the anti-semitism front, and yet hasn't. His failure to do so allows the smear campaign to continue.

This is a failure of leadership.

The Labour Party has friends in the press, e.g. the Mirror and Guardian. They know that Tory Islamophobia is harder to attack if you have dirty hands yourself.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

"Anti-Semitism row: Frank Field resigns Labour whip"

Ouch. He was one of the ones to nominate Corbyn originally. He's one of the few respectable names Labour have left.

That being said, I'm not surprised, given Corbyn's first actual anti-semitic remark is now on record (no matter how he tries to pretend he misspoke or it was taken out of context). I was always under the impression that he just stood next to anti-semites as opposed to holding their views, but that's more or less gone out of the window over the last week. Sad days for the Labour party.

So where’s the media outrage at the overt racism, homophobia and general bile in the Tory ranks?

It’s almost as if this whole thing is just a shoddy smear campaign....

No,no, no. Sorry, you don't get to excuse racism in American police by pointing at homophobes elsewhere. Racism does not work on a basis of whataboutism. Corbyn literally came out with an anti-semitic statement. From the mouths of babes. He can blather on all he likes about how he's just referring to zionists, but the statement literally does not make sense if there is no ethnic connotation.

“They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

Zionism is, after all, a political position, and that's what makes it free for criticism. But you wouldn't say the above statement about somebody who was a fan of reducing income tax by 5%, or giving Cornwall independence.

If I said, 'Vote Tory', you looked at me and responded, 'I hate the Tories', to which I replied, 'Ah, despite having lived in this country for a long time, maybe even your whole life, you don't understand English irony'; you'd say 'You bloody what mate?' Because it doesn't fit without the ethnic connotation. It doesn't make sense. As a strapping Englishman, why would I be questioning how long you've lived here? Why would I assume I have a better handle on specifically 'English' (note the ethnic qualifier, it's not just basic) irony than you?


Flip it on its head and change the scenario. Imagine Mr Farage was standing there at his conference, and said the below about a group of predominantly muslim, brown skinned protestors (who were all born and raised in Birmingham) that just heckled him over anti-EU policies:-

“They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

Would you believe him when he turned around afterwards, mumbled something about how he was only attacking their political position and them being muslims or brown had nothing to do with it? Course you wouldn't. Because as said, the comment literally makes no sense without the ethnic element.


Mr Corbyn very clearly delineated and joked about the English Jews who were protesting against him on a political point as the 'ethnic other'. He used that to discount them. That is anti-semitism. Light anti-semitism, nothing hardcore. He's not up for burning the Jews in the streets, I think. But he's no better than all those slightly racist mongs bitching about burkas; just in another direction. And that makes me genuinely sad. I think that Labour party supporters (one of which I'd like to be) deserve better than that for a leader. I actually believed him when he said he just shared a platform with anti-semites instead of being one, after all.

So stop complaining about smear campaigns. His own words condemned him, not anything from the Tories.

fething well said Ketara. fething very well said.

He’s entitled to his own opinions and all that gak but he should be held accountable for them like everyone else.

It still beggars belief that a man with such miserable history is seen as a new dawn for his party.

Locally, Labour activists who were extolling the fresh new approach Corbyn would bring to politics are distancing themselves from their leadership. He is an issue for the wider party.

Thing is, I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt from the start. If you'd followed my comments in this thread, you'd see my view of him gradually progressed:-

'What a nice well-meaning principled fellow!'
*cue four months of Labour infighting and statements dancing around the IRA*
'What a well-meaning and principled, if ineffectual fellow!
*cue a general election and complete absence of policies*
'What a well meaning principled fellow, even if ineffectual and devoid of actual political/economic knowledge!'
*cue several months of images of Corbyn standing next to really racist bastards and subverting the Labour party structure*
'What a well meaning fellow!'
*cue three months of Corbyn trying to redefine anti-semitism to best suit him and Jews fleeing the Labour party, culminating in recordings of him making mildly anti-semitic remarks*
What a...fellow?

I've got nothing good left to say about him by this stage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I think I've said before, for all the campaign of smear, Corbyn could defuse it by taking decisive action on the anti-semitism front, and yet hasn't. His failure to do so allows the smear campaign to continue.

This is a failure of leadership.

Exactly. He's absolutely not anti-Semitic, but he's also absolutely not fit for leading a political party or government. I can understand him not wanting to play these games, but in his position he really has to be seen to be doing something about anything.

Taking advantage of the thread new title, and after this:

The EU is polling citizens if daylight saving is really necessary
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/5/17536400/european-union-polling-citizens-daylight-saving-time-necessary

Results have been made public, and it's been pretty overwhelming with 84% of respondents agreeing that daylight saving doesn't really work.

Clock changes: EU backs ending daylight saving
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45366390

It's being fast-tracked so it might well be in force before the scheduled next change in october.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I understand daylight saving (slightly) favours the industry and the big energy spenders, but there are also (small) savings to be had domestically and there's always some discomfort with the hour chance, especially for children.

Thoughts?

I’m quite happy with the extra hour in bed myself.

It made sense when daylight was important to everyone, as they all worked in fields. For those that work in fields, they can always just get up at 4 instead of 5 - it makes no difference to them.

For everyone else it just seems to cause confusion and body clock issues. I honestly doubt many people would actually notice or care that it got darker an hour earlier or not - we're generally not awake to see the dawn anyway.

As someone who has regular meetings across most time zones, daylight savings is an absolute pain in the gakker. Meetings shift arbitrarily based on the timezone of the creator, and thus conflicts can appear, or times change. It's made worse since as far as I can tell, the US changes clocks a few weeks out, and Asia doesn't do it at all.

So I'd be all for getting rid of it.

 Ketara wrote:
Thing is, I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt from the start. If you'd followed my comments in this thread, you'd see my view of him gradually progressed:-

'What a nice well-meaning principled fellow!'
*cue four months of Labour infighting and statements dancing around the IRA*
'What a well-meaning and principled, if ineffectual fellow!
*cue a general election and complete absence of policies*
'What a well meaning principled fellow, even if ineffectual and devoid of actual political/economic knowledge!'
*cue several months of images of Corbyn standing next to really racist bastards and subverting the Labour party structure*
'What a well meaning fellow!'
*cue three months of Corbyn trying to redefine anti-semitism to best suit him and Jews fleeing the Labour party, culminating in recordings of him making mildly anti-semitic remarks*
What a...fellow?

I've got nothing good left to say about him by this stage.

I think he is still well-meaning though. His comment was only very, very, very, very, very slightly anti-Semitic if you interpret it in a specific way. It is Corbyn's struggling with the criticism and general failure to tackle anti-Semitism that is doing him more harm than the comment itself. "Ineffectual" is probably one of the best qualifiers there is for Corbyn. Your great political rivals mess up the country this badly, everyone hates them, and your party still manages to be struggling? That is like the definition of ineffectual. Labour should be booming right now, capitalising on the failures of the Tories. But they can't. Probably that is not all Corbyn's fault, but he certainly isn't fixing it either.

As for daylight savings, back when I had a newspaper round and had to get up really early every day, I absolutely hated it. That sudden single hour difference would throw my entire biological rhythm in confusion and make me feel sick for days. Just for that reason I would be happy to see it abolished, even though nowadays I usually can get up late since I have only one class a day and don't really notice the effect anymore.

Seeing how many deaths the strain on body it causes good riddanae

 Ketara wrote:

No,no, no. Sorry, you don't get to excuse racism in American police by pointing at homophobes elsewhere. Racism does not work on a basis of whataboutism. Corbyn literally came out with an anti-semitic statement. From the mouths of babes. He can blather on all he likes about how he's just referring to zionists, but the statement literally does not make sense if there is no ethnic connotation.

The problem here is that you are picking a single sentence out of the full transcript and then inferring that Corbyn is anti-semetic because of that single sentence. The full transcript is as follows:-

The other evening we had a meeting in Parliament in which Manuel made an incredibly powerful and passionate and effective speech about the history of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people. This was dutifully recorded by the – the thankfully silent Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said. They clearly have two problems: one is they don’t want to study history and secondly having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either. Manuel does understand English irony and he uses it very very effectively.

When looked at completely Corbyn does have a point in that the sentence being quoted is being taken out of context. The sentence is repeated in the media as "They" meaning zionists. In context 'they' is actually referring to the zionists that 'berated' Manuel afterwards and hence at most Corbyn can be accused of casting aspersions on all zionists in the audience as we don't know whether every zionist berated Manuel. What he definitely didn't say was against *all* zionists in the UK as that was never previously referenced. Now if this was a legal document you would have been more specific rather than use 'they', however spoken english language rarely follows such lines. What we don't have is a transcript of how Manuel was berated however if we suppose that this was to do with the resistance of the creation of a palestinian state for these people then he may be correct in that the people berating him have failed to recognise that there was long, hard fought battle for the state of israel to be created to ensure peoples safety from persecution historically and it would be ironic if those that support this concept then don't recognise that another group want the same form of freedom.

If I said, 'Vote Tory', you looked at me and responded, 'I hate the Tories', to which I replied, 'Ah, despite having lived in this country for a long time, maybe even your whole life, you don't understand English irony'; you'd say 'You bloody what mate?' Because it doesn't fit without the ethnic connotation. It doesn't make sense. As a strapping Englishman, why would I be questioning how long you've lived here? Why would I assume I have a better handle on specifically 'English' (note the ethnic qualifier, it's not just basic) irony than you?

Except that is not really a sensible or useful comparison. It would be more along the lines of:- Tory supporter "When the Labour were in power in the 70's they prevented me buying a house where I wanted to live and I fought and fought and fought for this right. Eventually we got rid of Labour and my work paid off and I was able to make a place that I call home" Labour supporter - "The Tories are preventing me today from buying a house where I want to live" Same Tory supporter "That is how it should be, I and my party should be able to tell you where to live, you shouldn't have that right"

Mr Corbyn very clearly delineated and joked about the English Jews who were protesting against him on a political point as the 'ethnic other'.

No he didn't because *they* wasn't in relation to 'English Jews' nor did he ever reference in the statement about 'English Jews' protesting against him on a political point. In reference to the above speech this is just at best very superficial link and at worst is just made up. Never mind that you don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist. You have even stated the zionism is a political view yet your inference is that criticism of that political view must hence be anti-semitic.

So stop complaining about smear campaigns. His own words condemned him, not anything from the Tories.

Except in this case it is smear campaign. Now it is a shame that rather than just state Manuel was berated that it would have been preferable that what was said to him was explicitly stated and his use of the english language could have been clearer, for example using These people in the audience, rather than 'they' but then I am sure we are all guilty of this sloppiness in using the english language.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m quite happy with the extra hour in bed myself.

This is misconception though. You don't get an extra hour in bed at all. If you spend 10 hours in bed, whether the clocks change or not you've still spent 10 hours in bed. If you consistently get up at a certain time then you still don't get an extra hour as you lose that hour 6/7 months later. The only argument for changing hours is safety in the winter (kids not walking to school in the darkness) but really that comes down to the way we constrain our lives around the 9-5 of working life (which is becoming increasingly outdated). The better solution globally would be to go to heliocentric julian date.

 Whirlwind wrote:
This is misconception though. You don't get an extra hour in bed at all. If you spend 10 hours in bed, whether the clocks change or not you've still spent 10 hours in bed. If you consistently get up at a certain time then you still don't get an extra hour as you lose that hour 6/7 months later. The only argument for changing hours is safety in the winter (kids not walking to school in the darkness) but really that comes down to the way we constrain our lives around the 9-5 of working life (which is becoming increasingly outdated). The better solution globally would be to go to heliocentric julian date.

In theory yes, in practice I doubt many will go hour earlier/later to sleep to compensate for the time change. So at one point you actually sleep less hours, later hour more.

In theory yes, in practice I doubt many will go hour earlier/later to sleep to compensate for the time change. So at one point you actually sleep less hours, later hour more.

Hence over the year you don't get that extra hour in bed, yes? Generally I find that on the day it applies I just get up one hour later/earlier which really is just the same as going to bed earlier or later but doing it at the other end. I think the main reason people adjust in the morning is that the body clocks have become routined to go to a bed at a certain time, hence the adjustment comes after the clocks have changed not before.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem here is that you are picking a single sentence out of the full transcript and then inferring that Corbyn is anti-semetic because of that single sentence.

I actually watched the speech. There's footage of it. I took the quote as seemed best relevant, because the extraneous factors you're including are utterly, utterly irrelevant. I mean, to take this:-

The sentence is repeated in the media as "They" meaning zionists. In context 'they' is actually referring to the zionists that 'berated' Manuel afterwards and hence at most Corbyn can be accused of casting aspersions on all zionists in the audience What he definitely didn't say was against *all* zionists in the UK as that was never previously referenced.

I never said he was addressing all zionists in the UK. Perfect example there of irrelevant, additional inferences made by yourself. This:-

Now if this was a legal document you would have been more specific rather than use 'they', however spoken english language rarely follows such lines. What we don't have is a transcript of how Manuel was berated however if we suppose that this was to do with the resistance of the creation of a palestinian state for these people then he may be correct in that the people berating him have failed to recognise that there was long, hard fought battle for the state of israel to be created to ensure peoples safety from persecution historically and it would be ironic if those that support this concept then don't recognise that another group want the same form of freedom.

Is all utterly, utterly irrelevant to anything I said. If you want to debate with me, please don't waste my (and everybody else's) time muddying waters. The mention of 'history' has nothing to do wtih my point; it's just part of the complete sentence. The bit I'm grappling with is the mentioning of 'them 'living here'(maybe all their lives!), and not getting 'English' irony; when they're English and homegrown.

Except that is not really a sensible or useful comparison. It would be more along the lines of:- Tory supporter "When the Labour were in power in the 70's they prevented me buying a house where I wanted to live and I fought and fought and fought for this right. Eventually we got rid of Labour and my work paid off and I was able to make a place that I call home" Labour supporter - "The Tories are preventing me today from buying a house where I want to live" Same Tory supporter "That is how it should be, I and my party should be able to tell you where to live, you shouldn't have that right"

None of this bears any relation to the exact words Mr Corbyn used. I could make up half a dozen analogies that don't use the phrasing he did that could make it more/less anti-semitic. Change around the people or the subject as much as you like; but keep the words. To reconstruct your own analogy to include them;

Person 1:- 'I wanted to buy a house and the Tories/Labour Party/whoever stopped me'. (statement of a political position)
Person 2:- 'No they didn't.' (rebuttal of political position)
*speech later on referring to first persons political arguments*
Person 2:- 'Well, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they really didn’t understand English irony ' (what Corbyn said)

It makes no sense without ethnicity as a factor. You would look at someone who came up with that when referrring to somebody else's political position (in this case Zionism), and wonder what they hell they were on. Be it zionism, poll tax, or enbironmental regulations. How long someone has lived in the country has absolutely nothing to do with the political arguments involved. And why would you specify 'English' irony? Why not just 'irony?' The only reason you would ever construct a sentence like that is to portray the other party as being the foreign, or 'other' or 'separate from us'. Something your rather poor analogy in no way mimics, or encompasses. You also fail to address that anywhere in your post. In other words, you wrote a lengthy post which had very little to do with what I was picking up on; given you were quoting me.

No he didn't because *they* wasn't in relation to 'English Jews' nor did he ever reference in the statement about 'English Jews' protesting against him on a political point. In reference to the above speech this is just at best very superficial link and at worst is just made up. Never mind that you don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist. You have even stated the zionism is a political view yet your inference is that criticism of that political view must hence be anti-semitic.

Sure. We can be intellectually obtuse and pretend that in portraying the people he was talking about in his statement; Corbyn was imagining they might have shared an ethnic heritage of Upper Zoroastrianism. If you want to do those mental somersaults, just let me know and I'll proceed to ignore you from here on out.

Or we can deal with the reality, which is that there are only two common factors linking the people he's specifically referring to here, one of which is Jewishness. The only other linking factor in the group (that they are zionists, which is a political position) has absolutely diddly squat to do with 'how long they've lived here', or their understanding of specifically 'English' irony. To return to his original statement. There'd be no reason whatsoever to say those things if referring just to zionism; and it would be downright weird, strange, and not at all in normal language to do so in refuting a political position.


Please note that you are now bending over backwards to try and prove that a man (a) who regularly stands on stages with rabid anti-semites, and is (b) currently attempting to redefine 'anti-semitism' so as to exclude himself, is not being anti-semitic. Even when he looks at a group of zionists/Jews and dismisses them with the words, 'having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony '. I get that nobody ever wants to go for the people wearing the same political colours as them, or even the ones wearing different colours because they chuck rocks at the colours you don't like. But this is getting silly.

As regards to Corbyn and anti-Semitism, I've been wondering for a long time now as to why the politics of another country (Israel) is such a big deal in Britain. As you know, I don't give two hoots for Israel or the Middle East, so I'm mystified as to why we keep banging on about it.

Naturally of course, any discrimination against our fellow countrymen and women for their religious beliefs is not on

and the perpetrators should be brought to book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

Taking advantage of the thread new title, and after this:

The EU is polling citizens if daylight saving is really necessary
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/5/17536400/european-union-polling-citizens-daylight-saving-time-necessary

Results have been made public, and it's been pretty overwhelming with 84% of respondents agreeing that daylight saving doesn't really work.

Clock changes: EU backs ending daylight saving
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45366390

It's being fast-tracked so it might well be in force before the scheduled next change in october.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I understand daylight saving (slightly) favours the industry and the big energy spenders, but there are also (small) savings to be had domestically and there's always some discomfort with the hour chance, especially for children.

Thoughts?

This is on of those rare occasions when I'm not attacking the EU

because I'm not particularly bothered one way or another, but what about Ireland? If the Republic has one time zone, and the North has another...well...

Maybe and Irish opt-out?