Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[two sheds]

That’s an appalling moderation decision.

I'd agree if it was something he was likely to back up but he's repeatedly made the nasty accusation and when challenged slunk off saying nothing.

 

[Hotel Chocolate]

Good interview here. I like how furious Harman is that she doesn't even ask him a question, while somehow Rory the Tory and Alasdair Campbell manage to actually ask him something.

https://x.com/OfSymbols/status/1809227745617928338

He made some good points there... I wonder if he will support proportional representation now?

What next? Will he form his own party or alliance?

 

[Silas Loom]

I'd agree if it was something he was likely to back up but he's repeatedly made the nasty accusation and when challenged slunk off saying nothing.

You quoted before I downgraded the adjective to perturbing, but that’s my lookout.

I don’t think that posters are obliged to reply to everyone who is piling on. Especially not when the demands for clarification are very hostile, or coming from people who have been personally abusive to the poster elsewhere.

And I don’t think that statements of opinion which don’t breach the FAQs, and are not reasonably likely to be actionable, should be deleted because a bunch of people who disagree report the post.

Unless Kid_Eternity chose to delete the post himself and asked a mod to remove quotes, of course.

 

[Wilf]

I'd agree if it was something he was likely to back up but he's repeatedly made the nasty accusation and when challenged slunk off saying nothing.

Exactly that. The chances of anyone close to Corbyn seeing it are real but tiny. This is about provocative drive by posting. On an important topic, it's deeply unpleasant.

 

[two sheds]

You quoted before I downgraded the adjective to perturbing, but that’s my lookout.

I don’t think that posters are obliged to reply to everyone who is piling on. Especially not when the demands for clarification are very hostile, or coming from people who have been personally abusive to the poster elsewhere.

And I don’t think that statements of opinion which don’t breach the FAQs, and are not reasonably likely to be actionable, should be deleted because a bunch of people who disagree report the post.

Unless Kid_Eternity chose to delete the post himself and asked a mod to remove quotes, of course.

I'd say it's borderline, but would it be ok for someone to repeatedly accuse a poster of being antisemitic and repeatedly refuse to back it up? Accusing Corbyn of being antisemitic suggests that anyone who generally agrees with his world view is also antisemitic.

 

[Silas Loom]

I'd say it's borderline, but would it be ok for someone to repeatedly accuse a poster of being antisemitic and repeatedly refuse to back it up? Accusing Corbyn of being antisemitic suggests that anyone who generally agrees with his world view is also antisemitic.

Well, obviously the rules about what one says about a poster differ from the rules about what one says about public figures, otherwise this would be a call-out thread.

I personally don’t think that Corbyn is an antisemite, although his inability to recognise antisemitism is one of the many reasons he was an entirely unsuitable leader of the Labour party. But there are probably people here who generally agree with Melenchon’s world view, and I reckon it’s definitely fair to call him an antisemite. Presumably I can do so without being moderated? So, why is Corbyn special?

 

[The39thStep]

It's understandable to me that some posters on here must have frayed nerves after Hamas took North Islington

 

[two sheds]

I personally don’t think that Corbyn is an antisemite, although his inability to recognise antisemitism is one of the many reasons he was an entirely unsuitable leader of the Labour party.

Fair enough, but did you read that post upthread where I pointed out that he was the one who did recognize antisemitism in the Labour party and backed Formby in pushing through the changes that actually handled the problem by expelling the antisemites and racists?

 

[belboid]

Well, obviously the rules about what one says about a poster differ from the rules about what one says about public figures, otherwise this would be a call-out thread.

I personally don’t think that Corbyn is an antisemite, although his inability to recognise antisemitism is one of the many reasons he was an entirely unsuitable leader of the Labour party. But there are probably people here who generally agree with Melenchon’s world view, and I reckon it’s definitely fair to call him an antisemite. Presumably I can do so without being moderated? So, why is Corbyn special?

summit to do with disrupting the boards? KE doing his usual hit and run, refuse to answer questions bullshit.

 

[andysays]

That’s a perturbing moderation decision.

Given that Kid_Eternity's post was potentially libelous, it seems like an absolutely sensible decision.

They're lucky to simply have had their post deleted, IMO

 

[Silas Loom]

Fair enough, but did you read that post upthread where I pointed out that he was the one who did recognize antisemitism in the Labour party and backed Formby in pushing through the changes that actually handled the problem by expelling the antisemites and racists?

I did. I don’t agree with that reading of what happened, but I don’t have the energy or inclination to argue the toss over whether the problem was effectively handled by those changes, or whether Corbyn was proactive or reactive in making them.

Neither do I have the energy or inclination to discuss the claim that antisemitism was weaponised in bad faith by people whose true dislike was for Corbyn’s socially democratic challenge to their neo-liberal instincts, even though I think that’s a pretty nasty slur to apply to that wing of the Labour party and its supporters.

The only point I’m going to make in this thread is that I am perturbed by the moderation decision.

 

[two sheds]

I did. I don’t agree with that reading of what happened, but I don’t have the energy or inclination to argue the toss over whether the problem was effectively handled by those changes, or whether Corbyn was proactive or reactive in making them.

Neither do I have the energy or inclination to discuss the claim that antisemitism was weaponised in bad faith by people whose true dislike was for Corbyn’s socially democratic challenge to their neo-liberal instincts, even though I think that’s a pretty nasty slur to apply to that wing of the Labour party and its supporters.

The only point I’m going to make in this thread is that I am perturbed by the moderation decision.

Agreed it's a matter of interpretation, but that report showed that Labour HQ delayed and ignored the antisemitism. They then lied about it all so "the provision of false and misleading information to both LOTO and the General Secretary (both Lord McNicol and subsequently Jennie Formby) by GLU … meant that the scale of the problem was not appreciated."

To me it seems that doing nothing about the right wing members who actually caused the problem while systematically banning left wing members for much less serious infractions shows it was political in nature. Particularly with Starmer making sustained accusations of antisemitism against Corbyn.

 

[Silas Loom]

summit to do with disrupting the boards? KE doing his usual hit and run, refuse to answer questions bullshit.

I know that spittle-flecked pile-ons are a venerable and much-loved tradition on P&P, and I enjoy them myself when they are directed at people whom I strongly disagree with, such as the Putinist contingent.

But refusing to engage is by far the sanest strategy for the poster under attack. It preserves harmony, eventually allows the conversation to move elsewhere, and is very much in keeping with the general advice to put posters on ignore when they become unbearable.

So I don’t think that this is a good reason, either.

 

[Silas Loom]

Given that Kid_Eternity's post was potentially libelous, it seems like an absolutely sensible decision.

They're lucky to simply have had their post deleted, IMO

If we went through Urban and deleted every post about a public figure that was potentially libellous, the significant reduction in hosting fees would be small compensation for almost no threads making sense any more. This wasn’t moderation BAU.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Agreed it's a matter of interpretation, but that report showed that Labour HQ delayed and ignored the antisemitism. They then lied about it all so "the provision of false and misleading information to both LOTO and the General Secretary (both Lord McNicol and subsequently Jennie Formby) by GLU … meant that the scale of the problem was not appreciated."

To me it seems that doing nothing about the right wing members who actually caused the problem while systematically banning left wing members for much less serious infractions shows it was political in nature. Particularly with Starmer making sustained accusations of antisemitism against Corbyn.

Yep. It's hard to argue otherwise, particularly as the effect of the purge was that scores of Jewish members were expelled for antisemitism. It was a sick joke, and its aims were naked. Criticise Israel and you're antisemitic. EG:

It cited the example of Andrew Feinstein, who has been under investigation since November 2021 after he described Israel as “a brutal, rogue, apartheid state just like my home, South Africa, was.”


Feinstein is a former African National Congress MP and the son of a Holocaust survivor. He has lectured on genocide prevention at Auschwitz.


In its letter, JVL pointed out: “Leading Israeli and other international human rights organisations have argued that Israel operates an apartheid system.


“Mr Feinstein sent the Party a comprehensive response to its draft charges in December 2021. Nearly two years later, he is yet to hear back.”


On Thursday a group called Labour Activists 4 Justice, which is linked to JVL, put out a crowdfunder appeal to help cover the costs of legal advice. It has so far raised more than £130,000.

UK Labour Party accused of discrimination over expulsion of Jewish members

Despicable behaviour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also, Starmer appeared to think that merely expressing the opinion that there wasn't a serious problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party was itself antisemitism. Which is bonkers, whether or not you agree with the opinion.

 

[DotCommunist]

Its unrelated but I think proscribing a group, deciding those who appear with them or work in any capacity are to be disciplined and then running that retrospectively is the work of a Draco, stalin be damned. You don't go 'new rule!' and then enact it backwards, thats naked shithousing.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

That’s a perturbing moderation decision.

Indeed. It’s not libellous and Corbyn could never prove it such.

I stand by what I said.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I'm not saying I'm an intellectual or have my finger on the pulse but I'm guessing either 40% of the boards members have me on ignore, or they think the question is some kind of trap that they are keeping an eye on.

For me, no, Corbyn's politics are shit for a start. And he'd been an MP for 30 years I think and didn't see the reality. Fucking cult around the man. Awful leader. People pining and reminiscing over a man that delivered us Truss.

Absolutely a cult, the belief in him rots the mind of the politically gullible.

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed. It’s not libellous and Corbyn could never prove it such.

I stand by what I said.

No perhaps. But you're reckoning without his lawyers who'd have no difficulty with it.

 

[belboid]

Indeed. It’s not libellous and Corbyn could never prove it such.

We shall add libel to the list of things you know nothing about.

 

[Pickman's model]

We shall add libel to the list of things you know nothing about.

Let's make things easy on ourselves and make the much shorter list of things he has a scooby of

 

[Serge Forward]

Let's make things easy on ourselves and make the much shorter list of things he has a scooby of

He's not bad at trolling, to be fair. Oh, and being a dick.

 

[The39thStep]

Indeed. It’s not libellous and Corbyn could never prove it such.

I stand by what I said.

You could post it up again just to test your view out or use the feedback/customer experience route with the mods

 

[DotCommunist]

like 'ideology' the word 'cult' has taken on a tiresome repeated use by people who echo their fave columnists rather than have an independent thought or two. What's interesting, about both words is the usage they have taken on is completely arse about face. A real 'fish with no word for water' moment.

 

[Pickman's model]

Absolutely a cult, the belief in him rots the mind of the politically gullible.

There are none as politically gullible as those who laud the new administration

 

[Wilf]

Indeed. It’s not libellous and Corbyn could never prove it such.

I stand by what I said.

And neither, it seems, can you prove the accusation to be true.

Well, actually, now we're at that point and you are engaging, why don't you take the opportunity to back up your claim?

 

[belboid]

A real 'fish with no word for water' moment.

ooh, good phrase.

 

[Serge Forward]

And neither, it seems, can you prove the accusation to be true.

Well, actually, now we're at that point and you are engaging, why don't you take the opportunity to back up your claim?

With real examples (ie not whatever shite he read in the paper).

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, obviously the rules about what one says about a poster differ from the rules about what one says about public figures, otherwise this would be a call-out thread.

I personally don’t think that Corbyn is an antisemite, although his inability to recognise antisemitism is one of the many reasons he was an entirely unsuitable leader of the Labour party. But there are probably people here who generally agree with Melenchon’s world view, and I reckon it’s definitely fair to call him an antisemite. Presumably I can do so without being moderated? So, why is Corbyn special?

Tell me about this "inability to recognise antisemitism". I'll wait.

Also, what evidence have you of Melenchon's antisemitism? Again, I'll wait.