FlyTheNest

Morning all.

[youtube]Gs069dndIYk[/youtube]

[youtube]wte1uk4A5eU[/youtube]

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/bu ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Merseyrail abandons 'driver only' trains plan bringing end to long-running bitter dispute with guards


Removing guards,the clue is in the name.

HindleA wrote:https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/bu ... ssion=true

Merseyrail abandons 'driver only' trains plan bringing end to long-running bitter dispute with guards


Removing guards,the clue is in the name.

Good to hear - Northern Railways next, please.

Frank Field, David Blunkett, welfare 'reformers' , just look at those they associated with !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Social_Justice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“FRANKLY FED UP” –
NEWLY-ELECTED, JEWISH WIRRAL COUNCILLOR RESPONDS TO FIELD’S RESIGNATION SMEAR
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/08/31/frankl ... ion-smear/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For some reason, the Guardian thinks exhuming discredited has-been Blunkett (again) will impress us.

It’s not ME, it’s you – can the chronically ill embrace the social model?
https://inclusionproject.org.uk/social- ... e-its-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-of-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brown told Field that party rules say MPs cannot resign from the whip and still maintain Labour membership.

Field said he would fight any such move in the courts if necessary. “If I am denied party membership, I will appeal [against] that. I will get the best lawyers I can to fight my case. There are members of the Labour party in the House of Lords who do not take the whip. I want to be treated equally,” he said. He declined to name the peers who he said do not take the whip.

I always remember my mum suspecting a local farmer who stood for the council as an independent of being a member of the Tory party when he did so and considering it bad form.

It's certainly not the usual way of going about things, at the very least.

There were lots of "independent Labour" councillors hanging around after the last major Labour party schism as I remember, some of them re-elected for years. Not sure Frank Field is likely to emulate them, mind. Indeed, it's hard to see where he's going with this.

He probably thinks he is still as popular as he was three decades ago, not least thanks to all the media fawning around him.

That editorial in the Guardian was a genuine sycophantic disgrace.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fr ... 1.html?amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"If Frank Field should be deselected, why shouldn’t Jeremy Corbyn?"
Isn't John Rentoul, missing the point that Corbyn's local party could presumably deselect him, if they wanted to?

Also deliberately ignores the fact that the number of JC's rebellions that deliberately helped the Tories stay in office approximates to a round number less than 1.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Also deliberately ignores the fact that the number of JC's rebellions that deliberately helped the Tories stay in office approximates to a round number less than 1.

Hmm, and the number of JC's actions
that accidentally helped ..... (Sorry, couldn't resist)

hi everyone

citizenJA wrote:hi everyone

Have a little LOL from the Rentoul -- @Felixthered :

Jeremy Corbyn voted against tuition fees.
The bastard.
He opposes austerity too the monster.

Have LFI defended this yet:

PM of Israel
‏Verified account @IsraeliPM
Aug 29

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

refitman wrote:Have LFI defended this yet:

PM of Israel
‏Verified account @IsraeliPM
Aug 29

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.

Miriam Mirwitch said it was outrageous and indefensible, tbf to her.

Been mentioned by the Graun yet?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

refitman wrote:Have LFI defended this yet:

PM of Israel
‏Verified account @IsraeliPM
Aug 29

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.

Miriam Mirwitch said it was outrageous and indefensible, tbf to her.

Been mentioned by the Graun yet?

Funnily enough, no.

I didn't think Netanyahu's speech was so bad, in context.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCent ... 90818.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The edited.quote sounded like contempt & a threat towards 'others', presumably Palestinians, the less edited sounds more like a justification for strong defence.

"Shimon aspired toward peace but he knew that true peace can be achieved only if our hands strongly grasp defensive weaponry. In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.
This process, of normalization by leading countries in the Arab world with the strong State of Israel, is happening before our eyes on a scale that would have been impossible to imagine a few years ago. This process bears hope within it that, in the end, the cycle of peace will be completed. But it is impossible to deny the fact that there are yet many enemies in this region and beyond....."

TBG -- I read the context too . A plain statement of realpolitik, history .

R4's Sunday programme just now covered a number of topics --
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgp7j1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sacks was predictable, but was questioned on his assertions that Corbyn was alluding to all Jews rather than some specific Zionists, and was it really apposite to compare him to Enoch Powell ?

His other assertion was that the New Antisemites refer to Zionists when they really mean All Jews. My paraphrase but I think accurate.

He did add that you are allowed to criticise Israel.

For good measure there was of course the usual veiled reference to the Holocaust.

It doesn't matter what you mean when you speak, If someone finds it offensive, you are WRONG.

So there !

tinybgoat wrote:

(Netanyahu's comments - snippity snip snip) " This process bears hope within it that, in the end, the cycle of peace will be completed."

The issue with this is that what I think he means is 'when we have regularised and gained international recognition of our extended occupation, so that Israel's official borders will stretch as far across the ancient lands as we want them to'. It's a bit like the argument about whether when Trump said early in his presidency he favoured a one-state solution was he making a mistake or actually envisioning a minority Jewish state denying rights to the majority.

• * Gerard Batten, UKIP's leader, said that Islam is death cult, that non-Muslims were behaving rationally when they were afraid of Islam, that we should ban the building of new mosques and that Muslims in the UK should sign up to an edited version of the Koran that pleased us.
  * Farage said that Muslims had split loyalties between the UK's way of life and their faith.
  * Boris Johnson in the Telegraph wrote of black people as "piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" and as editor published articles in The Spectator saying that black people have lower IQs than white people and that people from the Caribbean in the UK were multiplying like flies.
  * Conservative MP David Wilshire said that exposing MPs expenses was treating them like Jews in Nazi Germany.
  * Conservative MP Aidan Burley helped to organise and attended a Nazi-themed stag party and was cleared by the Conservative party of any racism or anti-semitism.

That's a start - there's lots more.

Jonathan Sachs thinks that Corbyn attacking political zionism as an expression of anti-Palestinian attitude in a meeting about anti-Palestinian attitudes was "the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell's 1968 'rivers of blood' speech." I think that's a shockingly disgraceful statement to make.

The fact is that some people *do* say "Zionists" when they actually mean "the Jews". They also tend to be on the far right, however.

It was grimly amusing to see the individual behind the "Khan blimp balloon" (and what a complete flop that was, btw) revealed as overtly AS btw. Though this may be confusing to some who rely solely on the media for their information, given the distinct recent impression given that only left wing people can hate Jews

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The fact is that some people *do* say "Zionists" when they actually mean "the Jews". They also tend to be on the far right, however.
It was grimly amusing to see the individual behind the "Khan blimp balloon" (and what a complete flop that was, btw) revealed as overtly AS btw. Though this may be confusing to some who rely solely on the media for their information, given the distinct recent impression given that only left wing people can hate Jews

Grim amusement sums it up well AK ! Sachs was on about "vast numbers of British Jews living in fear" this morning, but of what, exactly ???? There are also 'some' numbers living in fear of the Islamic "death cult", promoted by Batten at Ukip and others ( Adam's post above ).
What the extremes of the Israel Firsters and neoNazis have in common is their use of the same fear-mongering .

Where there is actual harassment in public, it is a police and community matter far more important than a few words probably misspoken by the odd politician. And it is obvious that the Tory police and PCSO cuts have gone in precisely the wrong direction.

Time for windfall plums and pears, to take to the beach , my life is ruled by the tides !

Good-afternoon, everyone

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown calls on Labour to adopt anti-Semitism definition 'unanimously, unequivocally and immediately'

Perhaps the most important part of Brown's speech:

Mr Brown said the definition, which has been signed by 31 countries, states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

The difficulty the NEC is in is that the IHRA definition and given examples don't (in and of themselves) curtail free speech and criticism of Israel in the way many Corbyn supporters appear to have been led to believe they do, which leads to the question of why did they change them, a question that has been damaging for Labour, rather than the question of what have they changed them to, which, ironically, in practice is so virtually the same as the original to make no real difference.

A storm in a teacup indeed. But a storm that has revealed such a deep seated lack of trust and respect on both sides it seems hard to see how it can be weathered.

I thought John McDonnell handled it well enough on Marr this morning. Genuinely conciliatory. And Keir Starmer has said, like Brown, Labour should simply adopt the definition and examples in full. It may be enough to satisfy those genuinely upset by this, and there are some in amongst the stirrers who shouldn't be overlooked. Retaining the changed examples will simply lead to the constant need to defend them which unfortunately from some Corbyn supporters is coming across as accusing their creators of ulterior motives vis a vis suppressing criticism of Israel and then Labour starts to become that which it has been accused of.

One aspect of this, though, is that some anti-Corbyn (and pro-Israel) elements in Labour *want* to use the most restrictive interpretations of the IHRA examples.

Given that, what now appears to be a likely outcome - adopting the text in full *but* with significant caveats around said examples - may be a prudent one.

Willow/AK -- I had understood that not all 31 countries had signed up to exactly the same wording ?

frog222 wrote:Willow/AK -- I had understood that not all 31 countries had signed up to exactly the same wording ?

That is quite correct, many of the claims about who/what has signed up "totally" to IHRA are very much exaggerated.

Michel Barnier says he strongly opposes May's Brexit trade proposals

EU negotiator also suggests European carmakers will have to use fewer British-made parts (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -proposals

AnatolyKasparov wrote:One aspect of this, though, is that some anti-Corbyn (and pro-Israel) elements in Labour *want* to use the most restrictive interpretations of the IHRA examples.

Given that, what now appears to be a likely outcome - adopting the text in full *but* with significant caveats around said examples - may be a prudent one.

Except isn't that exactly what the NEC were trying to do with the changes to the examples that caused the outcry in the first place?

At this point any caveats will just keep the row going, surely?

I would have thought Keir Starmer capable of grasping the legal and political implications of the IHRA definitions and examples. If he sees no reason not to adopt them as they are, why quibble? Why keep prodding the beast?

please revised post below

On 26 May, 2016, the 31 Member Countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism to guide the organization in its work. The IHRA was the first intergovernmental body to adopt a working definition of antisemitism – the result of in-depth discourse between international experts and political representatives.

https://holocaustremembrance.com/news-a ... tisemitism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That's all 31 Member Countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:One aspect of this, though, is that some anti-Corbyn (and pro-Israel) elements in Labour *want* to use the most restrictive interpretations of the IHRA examples.

Given that, what now appears to be a likely outcome - adopting the text in full *but* with significant caveats around said examples - may be a prudent one.

Except isn't that exactly what the NEC were trying to do with the changes to the examples that caused the outcry in the first place?

At this point any caveats will just keep the row going, surely?

I would have thought Keir Starmer capable of grasping the legal and political implications of the IHRA definitions and examples. If he sees no reason not to adopt them as they are, why quibble? Why keep prodding the beast?

No, the original alterations were *in place* of the examples weren't they? Slightly different, I admit this can all be pretty confusing though.

On 16 May, a lawyer named Aaron Schlossberg was in a New York cafe when he heard several members of staff speaking Spanish. He reacted with immediate fury, threatening to call US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and telling one employee: “Your staff is speaking Spanish to customers when they should be speaking English … This is America.”

...Schlossberg was soon confronted with a “fiesta” protest in front of his Manhattan apartment building, which included a crowd-funded taco truck and mariachi band to serenade him on the way to work.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/j ... -dominance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I love the crowd-funded taco truck and mariachi band serenade

AnatolyKasparov wrote:---
No, the original alterations were *in place* of the examples weren't they? Slightly different, I admit this can all be pretty confusing though.

(cJA edit)

I agree it's confusing
Why is it confusing?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -exclusion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:One aspect of this, though, is that some anti-Corbyn (and pro-Israel) elements in Labour *want* to use the most restrictive interpretations of the IHRA examples.

Given that, what now appears to be a likely outcome - adopting the text in full *but* with significant caveats around said examples - may be a prudent one.

Except isn't that exactly what the NEC were trying to do with the changes to the examples that caused the outcry in the first place?

At this point any caveats will just keep the row going, surely?

I would have thought Keir Starmer capable of grasping the legal and political implications of the IHRA definitions and examples. If he sees no reason not to adopt them as they are, why quibble? Why keep prodding the beast?

No, the original alterations were *in place* of the examples weren't they? Slightly different, I admit this can all be pretty confusing though.

Not so different in effect, though, I suspect. Could still be seen as Labour not being happy with the examples as they are.
Am happy to be wrong, though. I don't have much sympathy with either side in this row and will be glad to see the back of it.

I see what you mean, but as you say most people (on both sides) just want some sort of resolution.

And its now September, with "real" political news surely due to reappear soon.......

Israel's Arab MPs back Corbyn in antisemitism row

Letter praises Labour leader as ‘a principled leftist leader who is opposed to all forms of racism’

A political alliance of four Arab-dominated parties in Israel’s parliament have broken ranks with fellow legislators to announce their support for Jeremy Corbyn.

In a letter to the Guardian, the Knesset members said they commended the Labour leader for “his long-standing solidarity with all oppressed peoples around the world, including his unflinching support for the Palestinian people”. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... mitism-row

PF LOL !

Re Anatoly just now, but this IS the real News !

Netanyahu does NOT want a Corbyn PM of the UK . See BDS etc

citizenJA wrote:

On 26 May, 2016, the 31 Member Countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism to guide the organization in its work. The IHRA was the first intergovernmental body to adopt a working definition of antisemitism – the result of in-depth discourse between international experts and political representatives.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/news-a ... tisemitism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That's all 31 Member Countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted

Thanks for that ! Reading the small print I hesitated on two of them --
a) Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
b) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The introductory wording is ""Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: the list ...""
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/196" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we come to "context" !

[/quote](cJA edit)

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
Working Definition of Antisemitism
19 July 2018

The examples reflect forms of antisemitism as they exist today. This list is not meant to be exhaustive – as noted in the text proceeding the examples - since antisemitism is an ever-changing form of hatred that adapts to social, cultural, and political contexts over time.

https://holocaustremembrance.com/news-a ... tisemitism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(cJA emphasis)

Labour were doing a good thing, discussing examples

citizenJA wrote:

(cJA edit)

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
Working Definition of Antisemitism
19 July 2018
The examples reflect forms of antisemitism as they exist today. This list is not meant to be exhaustive – as noted in the text proceeding the examples - since antisemitism is an ever-changing form of hatred that adapts to social, cultural, and political contexts over time.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/news-a ... tisemitism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(cJA emphasis)
Labour were doing a good thing, discussing examples[/quote
]Exactly. Those two jumped off the page at me !

"" Britain’s leading role in evaluating new medicines for sale to patients across the EU has collapsed with no more work coming from Europe because of Brexit, it has emerged.

The decision by the European Medicines Agency to cut Britain out of its contracts seven months ahead of Brexit is a devastating blow to British pharmaceutical companies already reeling from the loss of the EMA’s HQ in London and with it 900 jobs.

All drugs sold in Europe have to go through a lengthy EMA authorisation process before use by health services, and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Britain has built up a leading role in this work, with 20-30% of all assessments in the EU.

The MHRA won just two contracts this year and the EMA said that that work was now off limits. ""

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tes-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh dear, brexit does seem to really mean brexit ...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... by-parents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Use of isolation booths in schools criticised as 'barbaric' punishment
Parents attack ‘consequence rooms’ where pupils are made to sit alone in silence for hours

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Huge fire breaks out on Edge Lane at old Littlewoods Building - live updates

George Brown either didn't read the small print OR he's seriously lacking in critical faculties --
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... k-homepage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
BULLSHIT really does reign !

Willow904 wrote: I would have thought Keir Starmer capable of grasping the legal and political implications of the IHRA definitions and examples. If he sees no reason not to adopt them as they are, why quibble? Why keep prodding the beast?

Here's another QC's opinion.
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/ar ... or-purpose#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Robertson, an expert on freedom of speech and human rights, who has lectured on genocide at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has criticised Theresa May for adopting a definition which was not intended to be binding and which was not drafted as a comprehensible definition. By pivoting on expression that arouses hatred (a “very strong word”) it does not cover speech that arouses hostility and fails to protect Jews from many prevalent kinds of antisemitism. For this reason, Mr Robertson’s opinion evinces surprise that Jewish organisations are advocating acceptance of the full definition by the Labour Party and other organisations.

Note 'not drafted as a comprehensible definition', it's no wonder we find it confusing. Even the man who wrote it doesn't think it's fit for purpose, can't give you a reference for that at the moment but if/when I come across it again I will.