Please go into the detail about what lies MPs have been telling about those issues. Because as far as I am aware -

 

- Labour does have a racism problem, particularly in anti-Semitism since Corbyn took over as leader

- Labour does have a sexism problem, with female MPs being targeted with abuse from Corbynistas (with some also being mixed with point 1, like Ruth Smeeth)

- There have been death threats made against MPs, including the MP mentioned in point 2, and it as got to the point that at least one MP has installed a panic room for safety. And let's not forget that it's barely been three months since an MP was murdered, so I'm in mind to take any death threats against elected representatives reasonably seriously.

 

On racism, there's the example of Chi Onwurah absurdly claiming that she was racially discriminated against because she was supposedly mistreated by Corbyn, without providing any kind of supporting argument/evidence, beyond "I happen to be black and I was treated this way". There's been similar claims from female Labour MPs that they've been discriminated against because of their gender. It's quite obviously nonsense, and not just to Corbynistas -- if you asked the general public, my guess is that even the many people who think Corbyn is useless and would hate for him to be PM, would still say he obviously wasn't a racist or a sexist (if anything, you'd probably get more complaints that he was too "politically correct" on those issues). And Labour members certainly haven't fallen for it; hilariously, in the light of the nonsense MPs have been spinning, the YouGov poll last week showed Corbyn doing considerably better with women members than with men.

 

On death threats, the best example of these MPs constantly crying wolf is when Thangam Debbonaire claimed that someone telling her to "get in the sea" was a "threat to kill" (even when any vaguely regular Twitter user, which she is, would know that it's a meme): https://g1rm.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/brist...threat-to-kill/

 

I forgot to mention the lies from MPs that various Labour election losses are due to "Corbynites", when they were actually nothing of the sort, and of course the most egregious example, the claims of John McDonnell breaking into someone's office, on which even John Bercow told the MP in question to stop being so ridiculous.

Edited September 4, 20168 yr by Danny

I suggest a quick viewing of The Life Of Brian*.

 

(* He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy)

 

I would as well, although for slightly different reasons. The Judean Peoples' Front/ People's Front of Judea segments was a satire of left-wing politics and its tendency to split at a moment's notice at the time, and even now a lot of it still rings true.

On racism, there's the example of Chi Onwurah absurdly claiming that she was racially discriminated against because she was supposedly mistreated by Corbyn, without providing any kind of supporting argument/evidence, beyond "I happen to be black and I was treated this way". There's been similar claims from female Labour MPs that they've been discriminated against because of their gender. It's quite obviously nonsense, and not just to Corbynistas -- if you asked the general public, my guess is that even the many people who think Corbyn is useless and would hate for him to be PM, would still say he obviously wasn't a racist or a sexist (if anything, you'd probably get more complaints that he was too "politically correct" on those issues). And Labour members certainly haven't fallen for it; hilariously, in the light of the nonsense MPs have been spinning, the YouGov poll last week showed Corbyn doing considerably better with women members than with men.

The below still stands.

 

That isn't Chi Onwurah's claim - as you would know if you read her article/had read it but weren't being obtuse. She said that any major company that treated her and Thangam Debbonaire the way they had been done, coincidentally identically, as two of the very few BAME women in the PLP, would have been investigated for professional misconduct, with racial discrimination investigated as well. And they would have done. Most companies would be mortified to be accused of racism, but plenty would still likely be capable of an action which looked exactly like it couldn't tell two black women apart and had gotten them mixed up in a decision with huge professional repercussions.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/stagg...yn-s-leadership

 

So, either she is lying about her experiences with Corbyn (he hasn't addressed any of these comments) or he really is useless....

 

I know who I believe.

The below still stands.

 

Sorry, but I really don't believe any tribunal would seriously consider claims of "racial discrimination" purely on the basis that one person who was black was shoddily treated. There would need to be atleast some kind of argument made that the employer was motivated by racism in their treatment of the person, or that the employer had a history of not appointing black people to top positions - neither of which remotely applies to Corbyn. Far from providing any concrete evidence, Chi Onwurah doesn't even allege any specific incidents or aspects that would back up that Corbyn was motivated by racial discrimination -- her whole case is "I'm black and I was treated this way", which is quite obviously not good enough, any more than it would be OK for Corbyn to claim that Labour MPs are against him because of ageism without providing any supporting arguments.

Seriously trying to compare racism with ageism? Okay.

Seriously trying to compare racism with ageism? Okay.

 

Not really? I'm not comparing them in the sense of saying racism and ageism are the same or are equally big problems, I'm just making the point that there's no more evidence that Corbyn discriminated against Chi Onwurah on the basis of her race, than there is that Labour MPs are discriminating against Corbyn on the basis of his age.

Edited September 5, 20168 yr by Danny

Sorry, but I really don't believe any tribunal would seriously consider claims of "racial discrimination" purely on the basis that one person who was black was shoddily treated. There would need to be atleast some kind of argument made that the employer was motivated by racism in their treatment of the person, or that the employer had a history of not appointing black people to top positions - neither of which remotely applies to Corbyn. Far from providing any concrete evidence, Chi Onwurah doesn't even allege any specific incidents or aspects that would back up that Corbyn was motivated by racial discrimination -- her whole case is "I'm black and I was treated this way", which is quite obviously not good enough, any more than it would be OK for Corbyn to claim that Labour MPs are against him because of ageism without providing any supporting arguments.

No, no tribunal would consider claims of racial discrimination on the basis that one person who was black was shoddily treated. Which is why the fact that it was two black women who were treated badly - and in an identical manner - is central to her whole point. As, again, she says in those exact words in the article. Who are we accusing of misrepresentation again?

No, no tribunal would consider claims of racial discrimination on the basis that one person who was black was shoddily treated. Which is why the fact that it was two black women who were treated badly - and in an identical manner - is central to her whole point. As, again, she says in those exact words in the article. Who are we accusing of misrepresentation again?

 

The point still stands: she makes no arguments to support her case that she was mistreated on the basis of race.

 

To amend the previous analogy, it's no different to saying Labour MPs are treating both Corbyn and McDonnell badly, two men of pensionable age, in a "coincidentally identical manner", and drawing an automatic conclusion that they are treating them badly because of ageism.

Edited September 5, 20168 yr by Danny

Except that one of her central points is that it wouldn't look good for him given that she and Thangham Debonnaire are two of the only black women in the Shad Cab, and one of relatively few to ever hold a position that senior. Can't really say the same about white male pensioners.

I'm willing to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt given one of his drooling fans is Ms Abbot to his Costello.

 

He's probably not racist. Just useless.

Except that one of her central points is that it wouldn't look good for him given that she and Thangham Debonnaire are two of the only black women in the Shad Cab, and one of relatively few to ever hold a position that senior. Can't really say the same about white male pensioners.

 

Again, all you're doing here is showing racism is a more pressing problem than ageism -- but just because one problem is more serious, that doesn't mean the burden of proof on the accuser is any less. I come back to that if Onwurah's and Debonnaire's race in itself is the only thing to suggest Corbyn is guilty of racial discrimination, then the very same logic would mean that Corbyn's and McDonnell's age is enough to suggest Labour MPs are guilty of age discrimination.

 

But this is pretty pointless, because Chi Onwurah herself quite obviously doesn't believe she was sacked on the basis of being black -- all the lies that Labour MPs have been telling all summer are not a coincidence.

Her point was never "he sacked me because I was black" though. Not even close. She was saying that had someone in a role as senior as his in almost any other profession acted as incompetently as he has, any investigation into their conduct would almost certainly touch upon the issue of race.

 

Do you think she was lying about the rest of her story as well?

And in today's episode of "Satire Is Dead, brought to you by the Labour Party" -

 

Jeremy Corbyn holds a press conference, where he gets the endorsement of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" hitmakers UB40. However, due to various legal reasons, there are actually two bands that currently perform under the name UB40, with the one which is fronted by Ali Campbell (i.e the version that had the person who sung on all their biggest hits) coming out against Jeremy Corbyn.

And in today's episode of "Satire Is Dead, brought to you by the Labour Party" -

 

Jeremy Corbyn holds a press conference, where he gets the endorsement of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" hitmakers UB40. However, due to various legal reasons, there are actually two bands that currently perform under the name UB40, with the one which is fronted by Ali Campbell (i.e the version that had the person who sung on all their biggest hits) coming out against Jeremy Corbyn.

Congratulations on mentioning UB40 without mentioning the other Ali Campbell (Tony Blair's mate) :lol:

Her point was never "he sacked me because I was black" though. Not even close. She was saying that had someone in a role as senior as his in almost any other profession acted as incompetently as he has, any investigation into their conduct would almost certainly touch upon the issue of race.

 

Do you think she was lying about the rest of her story as well?

 

No, but the rest of her story isn't anything out of the ordinary for politics. There's been tons of those types of mistakes in reshuffles -- Blair sacking Angela Eagle by mistake after "forgetting she existed", Thatcher appointing John Patten to a job once because she got him mixed up with Chris Patten, Cameron misreading Chloe Smith's CV and appointing her to an economics job because he thought she used to be an accountant. Cock-ups like that are inevitable when the expectation (rightly or wrongly) is that you put together a team of about 80 people within a few days - especially when, in the particular Corbyn case, one of the people in question was off work ill and so couldn't be easily contacted to confirm her recruitment (which isn't her fault, but nonetheless would still make things more complicated even for the most competent party leader). Chi Onwurah might be right that, in a "normal job", Corbyn would be in trouble for constructive dismissal, but in a normal job he would've been given weeks/months to decide on all the appointments, so the mistake would've never arisen in the first place.

 

The only aspect of the story which would've made this more than "standard cock-up in the usual rushed reshuffle" was the bogus claims of racial discrimination - which Chi Onwurah probably knew, given, again, it fits into the pattern of Labour MPs lying about Corbyn and "Corbynistas" all summer.

Edited September 6, 20168 yr by Danny

One would have hoped that MP's campaigning to lead their party would take the trouble to find out who they have been working with for the last few years, or at least getting someone competent to advise them about the people they can't be bothered to talk to/find out about/google....

 

Just cos some other git did it too doesn't make it any less excusable.

To be fair to Corbyn, most of the people he wishes were in his Shadow Cabinet are probably dead.

Anyone watching the last dying fart of the Labour Party Corbyn/Smith debate on BBC1 tonight? I'm guessing it's going to be one that shows more heat and light, and I imagine that some of the major claims against Corbyn (Iran TV, racism etc) won't be breached, or will be glossed over.

So Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser - that point really winds me up most by the Anti-Corbyn folk on here :rolleyes: