If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Neither was your previous comments, if anything Mdage's was a response in defence of what you had typed.
Not at all. Unless they will show you to be against the basic rules of these boards - as has happened with the likes of Steelgate, I really couldn't care less what they have to say about you Peeps.
Actually the only presonalised attack has been yours.
However, in your position I would also be concered - although my name isn't unusual on the 'net - however, it is wrong to attack them publically without provocation. And that user name isn't enough really. If anything the first post was more than relevant to the thread. Your response changed that.
If you are concerned about motive then refer them to the mods and let them decide. They have the power here...
Hurrah!!!! A personalised attack against an anonymous lickspittle.
:rolleyes:
Post 1 - I said there was an agenda.
Post 2 - it showed.
I get the feeling that if it was one of your righty mates your approach would be less cavalier. However, it isn't actually a left/right issue ....
Indeed the mods will end up having to make a decision, but I aint playing passive victim whilst that happens........
Erm... Wasn't it you who was bemoaning the personal attack issue?
Conveniently missing out the post in the middle when you made the personal connection. You should have just responded to the points made - which you still haven't BTW.
Or is a pre-emptive strike acceptable these days?
Nah. Until Madge does something wrong, or types something stupid, I will give them the benefit of doubt.
When the line is crossed I would defend you as much as anyone else. As you say this isn't a left/right issue. Although you and I don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, personal attacks and "stalking" are not acceptable. Like I said, no one likes a troll...
Besides, your reactions to that first post has now made this thread about the relatioship between the pair of you.
Why not leave your comments just to those about Ken and ignore the rest?
BTW Given your comment about "if this was your righty mates", you've obviously never heard of Man Of Kunt... he used to frequent this place...
Just like you're doing?
I think you'll find I'm responding to the points you made.....
Fair point.
Would it help if I made Madge's point then?
- embracing and defending a cleric who is the religious legitimator of suicide bombing;
- producing a partial and distorted defence of that's clerics views;
- characterising celebrated human rights campaigner (and supporter of an independent Palestine), Peter Tatchell as a dupe of a Mossad plot;
- demuring when a Saudi journalist asked him a question about the jews who the journalist believes control the media, and mentioning the jewish wife of a disgraced press tycoon as if it were an example of that conspiracy at work.
What is more important, being an arch-apologist Livingstone stooge, or condemning a politician who was voted for and is paid by londoners?
How does what associated execs did 13 years excuse Livingstones comments to a jewish journalist now?
Nope....
So you don't want to have a discussion/debate then?
Obviously you were right when you said "This isn't "politics and debate", " because clearly it should all be about "your toys and your pram"...
No, I'm not prepared to have a "debate" with someone using a user name of mine, and following me arounf thye internet.
So - your idea is - "Madge" asks, you c+p the "Madge" question - I answer you, "Madge" responds, you c+p "Madge"s response ....
That isn't debate honey, its childish games.
It kinda negates the purpose of the ignore function, no?
In the meantime, when "Madge" continues with whatever "Madge" seeks to do, nobody is going to be very surprised, are they?
Any idea why I picked the name "Madge Noon" ?
Erm, you aren't. It's with me. Haven't seen Madge for a few hours, have we?
Nope, but I thought that you might like to respond to the valid points. Or are you going to ignore anything which doesn't support your view point. For all you know Madge could PM me with a question to ask...
You're right, you are being childish.
Not really. But then I would have to care too.
Anyway, I thought you wanted this to be about Ken, not you?
You bask in anonymity too, ftp. I haven't dished out any version of any story, what are you talking about?
I think its time that ftp started responding to the points about Livingstone, however. I hope that it doesn't cause personal discomfort.
What did you make of Livingstone's rebuttal of the "London Coalitions" claims?
Erm, I'm about as likely to do that as "Madge" is to PM and disclose it's own identity....
Post 207 came a whole 16 posts before post 223 by my calculations......
I think that Peeps made his opinion very clear some time ago.
Delays by you just prove his point. The tolerance threshold for you is going to be very low, you know.
Nottrying to get you to engage with Madge, trying to get you to engage with the thread about Ken... and to ignore Madge's post. Except that there were valid points originally and you ignoring them doesn't help...
Now that I've lost track, can you point me in the right direction...
Try his website
Its rather essential reading when considering the question of Livingstone and Al-Qaradawi.
How can any anti jewish comment be racist? what crap.
A spat between a journo and a minor politician and the whole board of deputies want to get involved, obviously nothing very important happening elsewhere.
Does the above award have any monetary value as I would like to buy some football shares.
I am not anti jewish or racist or any of the other foul libels put about here.
I just love blue paper and matches. :thumb:
Fuck off and throw yourself under a bus, plskthnx :thumb:
As for your question, calling someone a yid cunt is racist.
What is it with this board and all the racist trolls? So many morons, not enough bullets...
ETA: if anyone should be banned, it should be freethemoron.
I only intend to judge people for what they say here, not for what they are being accused of. No one has any rights to a username and enless someone is breaking the rules there is nothing else to be done.
Ken’s opinions on anti-Semitism and homophobia are worthless. It amazes me that Ken claims to be a friend of the gays and lesbians when he gratefully accepts support from groups such as this See also here
I'm not surprised though. To Ken and Labour keeping the Muslim vote is so important they couldn't care about pissing off gays and lesbians. See the latest snub from Labour. Same story it seems for Jews, see here an article by Rod Liddle. He makes some true and very worthwhile points.
I guess it does. But then Ken doesn't know that the reporter was necessarily there for those reasons. He just lost his temper, made a scene and embarrassed himself...
And even if it does given the groups and people Ken seems to like to associate with questions have got to be asked. If a Tory Mayor had say welcomed a homophobic Christian preacher from Texas I'm sure there would have been plenty of outrage. And I doubt Ken would have welcomed such a character...So why should he welcome someone else with similar homophobic views?
I would say that, in light of him standing accused of an anti-semitic comment, they are highly relevant to the topic of this thread.
This isn't about homophobia at all, is it? It's about the comments that he made to Oliver Finegold outside City Hall, and whether they show Ken as anti-semitic.
The letter he sent looks as if it was a standard response to correspondence, but regardless of that, the issue is whether his statement was anti-semitic, or whether in fact it is an excuse to attack him because of his erm, "links" to Al Qaradawi.
Al Qaradawi was referred to the Met for hate-speech by the Board of Deputies in July last year - and the met found no grounds to proceed. So, its being played out in other ways.
I mean, you don't accuse people of just following orders because you lose your rag do you? Wouldn't you be much more likely to just call them a cunt and hit them.
But again, your evidence does seem to run counter to this.
Anyway Outrage's view
http://www.redglobe.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3886
Thanks for the link, interesting. Cheers.
As well as distancing himself from Qaradawi's views on homosexuality - "I do not agree with him", Livingstone, in his dossier reflects on religion and homophobia. In particular he refers to Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks .......
We're seeing a schism in the Anglican church over the issue of homosexuality, its part of what religion does ...... homophobia as a tool of social control.
Outrage don't agree...
http://outrage.nabumedia.com/mayorsdossier-thetruth.doc
And somehow I don't think Outrage are making a fuss over nothing. They're claims seem pretty genuine and justified to me.
What’s Jonathan Sacks got to do with this? Anyway Sacks is Chief Rabbi of the United movement. There are various movements in Judaism in Britain; the main three being United, Reform and Liberal. United is a modern Orthodox movement really. Liberal and Reform agree on most things but they both disagree with United on a couple of big issues.
Anyway Reform/Liberal movements especially in America have had a long history of supporting gay rights.
Fairly recently both movements have allowed same-sex unions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696074.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1425915,00.html
Have to say I was disappointed with the Rod Liddle article, what a load of crap from someone who usually does so much better.
The point he's trying to make does seem quite controversial, I guess that's typical for the Spectator though. But I think he's right, Labour are desperate to cling on to the Muslim vote. And to try and win back Muslim support lost from the Iraq war it seems Labour will do things that will disillusion other groups.
Not really surprising that Labour see the Muslim vote as being so important when as he points out in the article that 20 parliamentary seats could change if Labour doesn't win back support from the Muslim community.