O/T Amber Rudd falls on her sword.....

With the length and complexity of the arguments on this thread am I the only one hankering for a simple "she can fall on my sword any day" reply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

Your understanding is incorrect, raging. He didn’t state ‘his support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’. He saw a piece on Facebook where a graffiti artist talked about plans for the mural in question to be removed and responded with the following: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera’s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”

The reference to Rockefeller was to a mural taken down in New York in 1934.

There’s nothing there about ‘his support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’, is there?

So you then move on to ‘At that point there was no evidence that he had seen that mural.’ Well, no there isn’t if you suspend all sense of reason and reality and approach matters upon the basis that The Great Leader is in the habit of mooching around the internet until he comes across the Facebook account of a graffiti artist who is about to have some work taken down and then defends their work without bothering to look at it.

And, of course, there is the ‘apology’ issued by him in which he stated I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic. I take the words ‘I did not look more closely’, as an admission that he did look at it. Can you think of an alternative interpretation? What is the line that Momentum suggests for when dealing with this issue? Or is that what we got last night?

Let me put it this way - no criminal offence has been committed here but, if a jury had to decide whether The Great Leader saw the mural before posting about it, I’d prefer to be prosecuting rather than defending. And if I were defending, I’d be giving The Great Leader some firm advice about how limited his prospects of success were.

I suppose one of the questions that someone might ask of The Great Leader is when his ‘support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’ arose given that he was a speaker at a rally condemning the Danish Mohammed cartoons. A follow up question would be to ask him why he appeared to be happy with art that is offensive to Jews, but not art that is offensive to Muslims. Perhaps you believe that he had an epiphany on the bus one day?

In my job, I sometimes have to advance arguments that I don’t think hold any water at all, so I know what a miserable task that can be. With that being the case, I do feel for you as you to try to hold to the Labour line on mural gate. But given that you tell us that spreading Labour spin and disinformation isn’t your job there must surely come a point where your intellectual self-respect says ‘enough’ isn’t there? I don't have you down as a gullible reader of any particular newspaper, because I don't think anyone of your obvious intelligence could actually believe in the argument that you are trying to make.

---

Good points here Kerr - not clocked the wording of the apology. I couldn't see this in the link Mont's posted but it is there if you click on a link in the link.

To be honest I didn't know that much about the history of the far left and some of their 'issues' with Jews so just done some crash reading. I think I get more about why it keeps popping up now, and why my Jewish father in law hates Corbyn so much!

To be honest, when I saw the mural I thought it was a satire on super power businessmen generally and only saw the prejudice on a closer look. Did Corbyn think the same as he seems to claim. Hard to imagine, and it does look weasly.

But is he an anti-semite? I don't think so, but yes, like many on the far left I think he has allowed his contempt of corporate massives to colour into his view of a people, which of course is unacceptable. But does he take these feelings forward or has he learned from this? Labour's responses have been good in theory but I guess there are a lot of suspicious, cynical, ill at ease Jewish party members that will be watching with critical interest. Me included now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

Why on earth would I want to report you? Who Labour has amongst its membership is a matter for the party.

If ragingpup is appreciative of your honesty (although he doesn’t seem to want to say which of your explanations is the honest one) and willing to offer his respect to you for your postings that’s just fine with me and probably an indication of how things would be 'dealt with' by Labour if your posting history was examined by them .

---

So you don't accept animal's explanation? I'm willing to accept a bit of introspective regret on here, and certainly when people are big enough to accept when their beliefs have been challenged and that they have changed. Don't see it very often and I find it refreshing from anyone. I'd be quite happy to accept similar from GF if he changed his similarly poisonous views. Animal's posts were unacceptable but he seems to recognise that, and I wouldn't expect to see it repeated. What more do you want from him?

It's a big day for Corbyn and Labour today with the council elections .

Keep an eye on Hillingdon which in my opinion is as good an indication as to where we are as it's Boris Johnson territory and his Uxbridge seat .

Boris , Rudd and one or two more high profile Tory MP's are receiving extra targeting and funding in a bid to oust them altogether , if you know your cricket its similar to a test team targeting the opposition captain during a test series .

Kensington and Chelsea too is an interesting one for obvious reasons , sadly I may add .

Which ever way you see things , tory , labour , lib dem , green or ukip , please vote because we decide these things , policies are only implemented by the people we choose to vote for and sometimes it's something we tend to forget .

Voting is not something ill be wasting my time with today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAMiller

With the length and complexity of the arguments on this thread am I the only one hankering for a simple "she can fall on my sword any day" reply?

---

This is the kind of thing that gets Lifeboatmen in Whitby sacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty_rhodes

This is the kind of thing that gets Lifeboatmen in Whitby sacked.

---

Thankfully I'm not in Whitby then (although I am close to Whidby Island) and amonst Americans who as everyone knows are renowned for their appreciation of sarcastic wit ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAMiller

Thankfully I'm not in Whitby then (although I am close to Whidby Island) and amonst Americans who as everyone knows are renowned for their appreciation of sarcastic wit ;D

---

Well us old nostalgic right-wingers hanker for the good old days when brave guys who risk their lives to save others weren't hung out to dry for having coffee mugs with a picture of a nude woman on. What a snowflake country this is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Good points here Kerr - not clocked the wording of the apology. I couldn't see this in the link Mont's posted but it is there if you click on a link in the link.

To be honest I didn't know that much about the history of the far left and some of their 'issues' with Jews so just done some crash reading. I think I get more about why it keeps popping up now, and why my Jewish father in law hates Corbyn so much!

To be honest, when I saw the mural I thought it was a satire on super power businessmen generally and only saw the prejudice on a closer look. Did Corbyn think the same as he seems to claim. Hard to imagine, and it does look weasly.

But is he an anti-semite? I don't think so, but yes, like many on the far left I think he has allowed his contempt of corporate massives to colour into his view of a people, which of course is unacceptable. But does he take these feelings forward or has he learned from this? Labour's responses have been good in theory but I guess there are a lot of suspicious, cynical, ill at ease Jewish party members that will be watching with critical interest. Me included now.

---

But you’re missing the real point and how we got into this debate. You will recall that it started with you suggesting, in terms, that Labour members were somehow morally superior to the Conservatives, but when you look at the events of mural-gate, you see that when a Labour Party member – this time The Great Leader- is found out ,the party will slip, slide and dissemble like any other to try to get off the hook.

Look at the chronology:

In 2015, the Jewish Chronicle contacted the Great Leader’s office to ask about his support for the mural. They received no response – the party was in the ‘keep quiet and nobody will notice’ phase.

In March, Luciana Berger contacted the Great Leader’s office, who, presumably realising that trying to brazen it out wasn’t going to work, released a statement remarkably similar to the ‘support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’ line that you took. In other words, the ‘try to take the moral high ground’ phase.

With the storm growing and perhaps realising that it was only a matter of time before someone noted that his desire to ‘support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’ didn’t seem to have applied when he attended a rally to speak out against the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, we moved into the ‘(grudging) apology coupled with excuse’ phase as we had the ‘regret that I did not look more closely’ statement .

What should be alarming to you is the phase that we are in now – the ‘attack Luciana Berger for her part in exposing the issue and re-write history by saying that it was all a media conspiracy’ phase.

What price Luciana Berger’s chance of reselection in the purge hinted at by animal the other day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

So you don't accept animal's explanation? I'm willing to accept a bit of introspective regret on here, and certainly when people are big enough to accept when their beliefs have been challenged and that they have changed. Don't see it very often and I find it refreshing from anyone. I'd be quite happy to accept similar from GF if he changed his similarly poisonous views. Animal's posts were unacceptable but he seems to recognise that, and I wouldn't expect to see it repeated. What more do you want from him?

---

Which of animal's explanations do you mean? He has given two. The first (which he has used more than once) is demonstrably untrue given the lack of a fatal terrorist attack at around the time of the 2015 statement. When I kind of pointed that out, the explanation switched to the 'epiphany on the bus' story.

Maybe it’s my forensic training, but when someone changes a story in response to being caught in a lie, I tend to be a little bit suspicious about the truth of the send version that has conveniently appeared and certainly don't rush to commend their honesty and offer them my respect. Instead, I look for corroboration or material that allows me to assess the veracity of the second explanation. In that, I have the advantage over you in that I have encountered animal many times over the years during my missionary work on Tykes Mad and have seen his views and attitudes upon race, religion and women (or split asses as he likes to call them).

What was the explanation for the 2014 outburst on Islam? Another bus ride?