Corb Blimey!

[DCI Harry Batt]

Of all the hills, Williamson seems the worst to me. Because he's appalling. There's nothing good there at all, is there? Just get rid.

[Tactical Genius]

The attacks on Shami Chakrabarti were utterly despicable. She's done more for equality and liberty in this country than most of her attackers combined.

Wasn't she the one that talk sport gobshite was on about constantly over a decade ago. I like her whenever I have seen her on TV, like Medhi Hassan she's always solid.

[Lurgee]

Oh Wadsworth was treated appallingly ...

That sounds rather similar to saying they have been "too apologetic." If you're going to admit (tacitly) that Wadsworth was effectively sacrificed to appease critics, then I think you pretty much need to give Williamson a pass as well, at least for the comment that got him suspended. Because it's true. He could have used slightly better phrasing, but it was none-the-less stating something you clearly agree with, to some extent at least. Hell, Williamson just said the party had been "too apologetic" over allegations anti-Semitism - you're saying it has been downright unfair to members because of them.

And if we accept Williamson's comments may have been poorly expressed but at least somewhat true, then we kinda have to - perhaps - give Livingston the benefit of the doubt as well. Hitler DID encourage Jewish emigration to mandate Palestine, though phrasing it as "supporting Zionism" was idiotic enough for me not to bother too much defending him. Hitler's interest wasn't "supporting Zionism," it was getting shot of Jews, by any means possible. As circumstances changed, the means changed.

Nothing Jackie Walker said (viz security, definitions of anti-Semitism, or remembering other genocides struck me as particular controversial, though perhaps raising them at a training session on anti-Semitism was the wrong venue. If she has concerns about those issues, discussing them before the workshop with the trainers would have been apprpriate.

Though this fine details stuff is distracting from the main point - Labour keep giving ground, and it is never enough for the critics. Once you accept anti-Semitism allegations are being used as a weapon to attack Corbyn and damage Labour (by different groups but with the same ultimate effect) then the pointlessness of appeasement becomes pretty clear - these people want to hurt Corbyn or the party fatally, and they aren't going to stop because of this or that minor concession or sacrifice. It will just go on, like a playground bully demanding lunch money. Giving him money once only encourages him to do it again, knowing it works.

That said, I can also kind of understand why the leadership cave in, time after time, because it must be fucking horrible being the subject of this sort of continual rumour and allegation, the people being suspended often seem to be going out of their way to make themselves hard to like or defend, and the impact of this sort of shit storm on members in general, and Jewish members in particular, must be appalling.

[Lucy Waterman]

I think if one’s main aim was to damage Corbyn and Labour, encouraging them to dig in and defend those accused of anti-semitism would be a good m.o. I’m not for a moment saying that’s what you want Lurgee, and I understand your frustrations while not sharing them, but I think it’s a pretty self destructive strategy.

They need to concede and move on, but they wasted so much time in doing so initially that it’s probably not possible now.

[Nefertiti2]

But as there will always be more people accused of anti-semitism and even defending the people accused of anti-semtism is deeme to be antisemitic there;s not really a way out is there?

Many of those are not good faith actors including the right of the labour party, the Jewish Chronicle. the Board Of Deputies. the Israeli embassy, the British media, and so on

[Nefertiti2]

as a Jewish member of the Labour Party it is appalling to see Steohen Daisley (say) being cited as an expert on antisemitism and my own experience being denied or being abused as a liar or a Kapo/

[Lang Spoon]

Stephen Daisley is a terrible human being.

[Lang Spoon]

The Unionist, pro Israel mirror of Wings Over Scotland cunt really.

[Sporting]

Gordon Brown is banging on about it in a Guardian article which I can't link to now.

[Lurgee]

I think if one’s main aim was to damage Corbyn and Labour, encouraging them to dig in and defend those accused of anti-semitism would be a good m.o. I’m not for a moment saying that’s what you want Lurgee, and I understand your frustrations while not sharing them, but I think it’s a pretty self destructive strategy.

They need to concede and move on, but they wasted so much time in doing so initially that it’s probably not possible now.

I hope you have a lot of pocket money because that bully is going to keep on wanting more.

When your critics and enemies are not acting in good faith, there is no moving on. That's what was tried. You can never move on enough for those people.

[Lurgee]

Gordon Brown is banging on about it in a Guardian article which I can't link to now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...radical-racism

He argues for automatic, immediate expulsion "in cases where there is irrefutable evidence of antisemitism or any kind of racism"; which would be great if things were that easy. Would Greenstein, Livingstone, Walker, Wadsworth or Williamson meet that standard? Of course not. Other than someone posting about hating Jews and wishing Hitler "had finished the job," it is pretty hard to see what counts as "irrefutable evidence" or anti-Semitism.

So empty rhetoric from Brown. Unsurprisingly.

[Lang Spoon]

Gordon Brown is banging on about it in a Guardian article which I can't link to now.

Maybe we should be grateful The Thunderer has moved on from his Only Federalism (but not really) can Save The Union default speech of the last 5 years.

[Lucy Waterman]

I hope you have a lot of pocket money because that bully is going to keep on wanting more.

When your critics and enemies are not acting in good faith, there is no moving on. That's what was tried. You can never move on enough for those people.

When you say not acting in good faith, you mean lying, right? Apologies for pedantic question but I’ have a side interest in trying to pin down the use of the term in current political discourse.

As as for the bullying thing - well, whether it feels like that or not, Corbyn wants to be PM and Labour want to be in government. And all this is an anthill compared to what they’ll then be facing daily.

[George C.]

Wasn't she the one that talk sport gobshite was on about constantly over a decade ago. I like her whenever I have seen her on TV, like Medhi Hassan she's always solid.

Hassan is more adaptable/versatile, Imho.

[Satchmo Distel]

When you say not acting in good faith, you mean lying, right? Apologies for pedantic question but I’ have a side interest in trying to pin down the use of the term in current political discourse.

As as for the bullying thing - well, whether it feels like that or not, Corbyn wants to be PM and Labour want to be in government. And all this is an anthill compared to what they’ll then be facing daily.

It could also be disregard for whether the statement is true or false. I might not be lying if I say Corbyn is an antisemite but I don't really care whether my claim is true or not

[Lucy Waterman]

Ah that’s interesting, thanks.

[Lurgee]

When you say not acting in good faith, you mean lying, right? Apologies for pedantic question but I’ have a side interest in trying to pin down the use of the term in current political discourse.

As as for the bullying thing - well, whether it feels like that or not, Corbyn wants to be PM and Labour want to be in government. And all this is an anthill compared to what they’ll then be facing daily.

Pretty much what SD said, with a couple of other things - a willingness to overlook due process, natural justice or fair play for reasons of expediency, a refusal to look at things in context or accept that any context exists, a tendency to resort to sloganeering, emotional appeals and such like.

Just being a dick, in short.

[Lucy Waterman]

Thanks L - but for me I’m not sure whether that’s clarified the picture or obscured it further! There’s certainly a lot going on. But lying or acting cavalierly towards the truth - that seems to cover it?

[Nefertiti2]

A truth that's told with bad intent beats all he lies you can invent.

an individual fact, - say that Luciana Berger has received terrible anti-semitic abuse online- can be "true" but may not be necessarilly evidence of Antisemitism in the Labour party. You may omit to mention that the majority has come from the far right.

Labour was accused of dealing very slowly with antisemitism cases. That could also be "true". Evidence appeared to suggest that a amber of the complaints team who was on the right of the Labour Party was both doing all he could to slow the process down and leaking cases to the press.

[Snake Plissken]

Demanding that an inquiry be held into anti-semitism, then when the inquiry is carried out by one of the most respected campaigners for civil liberties and human rights that this country has produced in a coupe of decades, dismissing said campaigner as biased and corrupt because she didn't give you the answer you wanted.

[ursus arctos]

On "bad faith", I would put in a word for taking diametrically opposed positions depending only on the "side" taking the action in question.

This has become absolutely chronic under the current US administration, with "conservatives" vigorously cheering actions they repeatedly decried under Obama and other Democratic administrations.

Deficit spending, "dissrespecting" allies, "acting unPresidential", "appeasing dictators", "corporate bailouts"; the list is literally endless and is added to virtually every day.

See also "judicial activism" and "original intent" as a basis for judicial interpretation.

[David Agnew]

Only caring about antisemitism in Labour, and not caring about Islamophobia in the Conservative party.

[DCI Harry Batt]

And, of course, vice versa.

[Lucy Waterman]

I’m still not sure it’s not simply a more opaque way of saying either lying, or acting dishonestly. If it’s meant to be more specific, then that specificity seems to be understood lots of different ways, so I don’t know that it helps.

[ursus arctos]

Well, yes.

"Acting in bad faith" and "acting dishonestly" are synonyms. Each can include "lying", but aren't limited to that.

In the US, statutory law and judicial precedent have given the concepts of "good faith" and "bad faith" real meaning in a variety of contexts (the details of which can differ by state*). I'm guessing that is not the case in England and Wales.

* For example, California law imposes an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in commercial contracts that has been used to sanction all kinds of abuses.