• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Before the Qualifiers started, I had this as one of 2 wins for Widnes (the other was London at home). I still think Widnes will win, but I think it will be close and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Halifax sneak it.
  2. Not a classic by any means, but a professional performance against a team that didn't seem that bothered. And why would they be. 2 points in the bag, on to Hull
  3. 18-0 at the half. Catalans getting a lot of pressure but not turning it into points. Also, if this game had been on Sky Trueman's try wouldn't have stood. Blatant obstruction in the build up. Take 'em when you get 'em I guess
  4. Disagreeing with Jewish people is not antisemitic and anyone who says it is is being disingenuous in order to stop debate. The goalposts do not move at all. Antisemitism is very clearly defined.
  5. These aren't just things I have heard. These are things that were widely reported in the media, the reports of which are freely available. What more evidence do you require?
  6. Right, I'm out. If you are just going to post rubbish and ad hominem attacks, I have better things to do. Disagreeing with a Jewish person is not antisemitic, as well you know.
  7. No, but if they sandwich has an orange tail it might do. If somebody was a member of group supporting the English Defence League, for example, there are certain assumptions that you can make about that person. It is the same with the group Corbyn was a member of. Ad hominem take two.
  8. The difference is I have done nothing that would support that view. I have given numerous examples where Corbyn has acted in ways that are antisemitic. Defending an antisemitic mural. Being a member of antisemitic groups on Facebook... Happy to agree to disagree. But I struggle to see what evidence you would accept - everything I have said has been well documented. No. My opening paragraph says that AT BEST he is guilty of poor judgement. That is giving it the absolute best spin on it. Combine all the instances together and one is forced to conclude that there is pattern that is more sinister. Defence of an antisemitic artist/mural. Membership of antisemitic groups on social media. Platform sharing with antisemites. Refusal to speak out against an antisemite, at a party event, during a row about antisemitism. Each, on their own, is forgivable. They add up to much worse. I have repeatedly shown Corbyn's antisemitism. Each time it has been hand waved away, with further demands for evidence. This is typical of situation,
  9. It is brought up now because his party is embroiled in an antisemitic row and he has a history of, at best, poor judgement when it comes to antisemitism. That would explain why I am friends with them. It wouldn't explain why I am part of that group. I will spell this out for you: IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A RACIST GROUP ON FACEBOOK IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME YOU ARE RACIST. I did not. I talked about Baddiel and his experiences in relation to one part of the conversation. I then spoke about Corbyn in a separate section, replying to other people and quotes. Evidence has been repeatedly provided. You are just refusing to acknowledge it.
  10. OK folks, strap in... Consistent with a simplistic view of the British establishment that is consistent with antisemitic tropes. I have provided, several times, such evidence. I'm not saying you should take my word for it. It is all well documented. You asked for evidence of something that was never asserted in the first place. Actually, the first result I got was from the Guardian (on both my personal computer and one at work). The first JC result was the last one on the first page. But regardless of all that, just look at the mural. One the Corbyn defended.It is full of antisemitic tropes. Corbyn has since agreed it is antisemitic. Yet he originally defended it. I'm struggling to see how this is relevant. Saying that people should avoid social media if they don't want abuse is inherently dangerous. We should be tackling the abuse. I too have family in America. They are Flat Earthers. I find this stance to be baffling. I still talk to them because they are family. Doing so does not mean that I believe in their nonsense. If, on the other hand, I were go onto a Flat Earth group, like that group and become a member of that group, it might be reasonable to assume that I share those beliefs, would you not agree? Actually, I used Baddiel as an example of antisemitism suffered by people on Twitter, in response to someone who was questioning whether it is an issue. I never once made any link between Baddiel or Corbyn, not did I suggest that there is one. Although, a cursory look at the timelines of the people who abuse Baddiel does show a certain trend... I currently have no particular political affiliation. That's hardly relevant. And this second sentence makes no sense. Your fallacy is ad hominem!
  11. Then I will simply refer you to my replies to Oxford. In particular, the last part of my most recent reply.
  12. I can only assume this is a wind up.
  13. Seriously? This part of the conversation has been about people on Twitter demanding apologies/condemnation re: Israel from the like of David Baddiel and other Jewish people. But you know that, and are trying to muddy the waters. I have not said they are the same. In fact, I have been quite specific in say they are not. What happens is people conflate the two (such in the abuse Baddiel gets) and then say they not antisemitic but anti-Israel. What has Israel got to do with Baddiel? That is where the conflation occurs, and that is antisemitic. This isn't just convenient for my argument, it is happening every day on platforms like Twitter to high-profile Jewish celebrities. I have offered examples of things Jeremy Corbyn has done. You have used spurious logic to hand wave them away. To wit: a) defence of an antisemitic mural (I've told you the search terms to find this) b) membership of antisemitic Facebook groups - your argument on this is that somehow other people posting stuff on his timeline is the same thing. HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE GROUP. THAT WAS DUE TO HIS ACTIONS. c) sharing platforms with antisemites - you argue that being around racists is not the same as being a racist. But he did just happen to be passing by. He was right there next to them, on the platform as they made their speeches. This is tacit approval by Corbyn. d) in the room when one of his party officials made antisemitic remarks - you argue that hearing racism isn't being racist. I argue that is someone was serious about tackling this issue, they would have said something. ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE THE LEADER OF A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY. To not do so shows that Corbyn either approves of the sentiment or is too weak a leader to do anything about it. These are all actions by Corbyn. No-one else. And yet it's still not enough evidence.
  14. Did I say he did? Did I saw that is the only way to be antisemitic?
  15. As I said above, racist is as racist does. It's not a smear if it is true, and it's pretty much all true. Has it been "weaponised" by his opponents? Absolutely, and that's not right either.