Search results for:

A mob is a large and perhaps disorderly crowd. It is a description not a term of abuse.

I agree the BBC is terrible. I loathe the institution and resent paying for the drivel that it is currently producing and the absurd salaries it pays utterly incompetent people. I just don't think the footage in question warranted some ridiculous petition and yet another volley of abuse.

The results can be spun whichever way you want - every party in the country claimed it was a success for them! Corbyn said Labour 'clung on'. Great. That's inspiring stuff in the current climate.

'Mob' might not have been the best word - it was more a word to represent their abusive behaviour than their size. Corbyn supporters were indeed a majority of Labour members when he was elected. Those who supported him however represent just over 2% of the people that voted Labour in the last general election. Just because Corbyn has the support of 250k members (35% of whom were the £3 sign-up and vote type) doesn't mean he will attract broad support where it matters.

I really don't get the Corbyn mob. They appear completely unable to accept any kind of criticism without resorting to abuse and fucking petitions. Have any of them actually watched the BBC footage in question? It is merely a discussion about the results of the elections.

The results for Labour were appalling by anyone's standards. Labour were obliterated in Scotland and finished in third. Corbyn became the first opposition leader for 50 years to lose seats at his first local elections. The shadow cabinet were constantly in the news describing the results as a disappointment and that the party is well on course to lose the next general election. No matter the spin, these would be terrible results at any time, let alone in the context of Tory moves on the NHS, disability benefits, academies, warring over Europe etc...

Can these facts not be reported without the journalist in question being called every name under the sun?

Ha! Same with Kennaugh - it's bizarre.

Diane Abbott has been deleting historic tweets supporting Livingstone's election to NEC. How do these people think that sort of activity won't get picked up!?

The original tweet isn't where she made that remark. This is far from a 'thinly veiled excuse to bash Labour'. The ones doing the bashing are Labour MPs and Labour peers!

Livingstone now claiming the entire thing is an Israeli conspiracy and justifying Shah's comments through Hitler's policies. You couldn't make this stuff up. Livingstone doesn't hold elected office. He is a vile man, why on Earth does Corbyn give him a platform?

Yes, but when the General Secretary took that action a few hours after the leader of the Party stated that Shah wouldn't be suspended and a statement was released saying "we're saying she's made remarks that she doesn't agree with". The context is rather important. Whichever way you try to spin this, the Labour party has a massive problem from its roots up to Corbyn (to mention a few - the Oxford University Labour Club, Gerry Downing, Vicky Kirby, Seumas Milne, Corbyn's acquiescence in all of this).

If you've read the comments in full then I'd say you were being naive. She refers to Jews as a problem and likens Israeli policies to those of Hitler. The tone is very clear and these comments weren't made a decade ago when she was young and immature - it was 2014. I agree people have said a lot worse, but Labour were very clear that there was a zero tolerance policy being imposed. Corbyn then does nothing and Shah is subsequently suspended by the General Secretary. It's shambolic at best.

How could Corbyn have handled this anti-Semitism issue any worse? Labour MP makes vile anti-Semitic comments in 2014, gives weak apology, Corbyn says 'yeah don't worry about it - of course you can keep your job'. It takes a pasting from Cameron in PMQs on the issue for him/Labour to volte-face and suspend her. Why is he so unwilling to take any action? Clearly a huge problem in the party recognised by prominent Labour peers and Jewish leaders and yet it is only when over a barrel that Corbyn actually does anything.

Other points to note are that the statement on her suspension read that Corbyn agreed that she had been suspended by the general secretary. Why not Corbyn? Why not immediately as McDonnell had promised only a few weeks earlier in the cases where anti-Semitic behavior was uncovered? Comments from Labour like "We're saying she made remarks that she doesn't agree with" are just meaningless and pathetic, and clearly despite Labour's protestations Shah's earlier draft of her apology had been heavily edited to remove any references to the anti-Semitic, racist problem within the Party.

It's no wonder the Tories are laughing, they are in disarray over Europe, the NHS and other issues, yet it doesn't matter. Corbyn is so ineffectual it feels as if there is no Opposition at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oPTrQ5phv0

"Man makes modest investment and pays all his tax". Love the complete panic in her voice when she realises this tax expert isn't going to say what she has clearly been instructed to get him to say. I'm not sure how she could have been less informed on the subject.

We'd be in exactly the same place with regard to tax avoidance if Labour were in power.

Labour took nearly £400k from PwC last year, despite PwC widely being recognised in the finance industry as one of the most aggressive tax avoiding firms in the world that consistently pushes the boundaries of legality. The hypocrisy is hysterical. If you voted Labour you are buying into exactly the same practices you are condemning. Even old Ed Miliband amended his late father's will to dodge inheritance tax.

If anyone thinks this is a Tory/Cameron problem, then they have missed the point on a rather grand scale (although to be fair that does seem to be this thread's raison d'être).

morally evasion and avoidance are synonyms

Nope. As I and many others have stated, having an ISA, pension etc. is tax avoidance but is clearly not morally synonymous with tax evasion. You could argue that morally tax evasion is synonymous with a sophisticated, offshore tax avoidance structure depending on the individual facts. This is exactly what Cameron has argued and is now rightly getting roasted.

You previously said avoidance and evasion are synonyms. That couldn't be further from the truth. One practice is legal. One isn't. They are by definition not synonymous.

The point you are making now is an entirely different one and concerns the question of when legal avoidance arrangements become immoral. That is a question to which everyone will have a different answer. The problem Cameron has is that he has publically condemned the exact avoidance practices his family have been involved in and that he has profited from.

Totally agree - the Guardian had quite a good 'live' thread going on earlier with all the quotes these fuckers have come out with over the last few years on tax avoidance/offshore schemes. How you can stand up and say these things with a straight face when pocketing cash off the back of the exact practices you are condemning is pretty unbelievable.

That's simply not true. Having an ISA is tax avoidance.

The tweet you've posted is in relation to tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal. The discussion re. Panama is about tax avoidance which is not illegal. So I don't think you can say Osborne should eat his words for saying something illegal is illegal, especially as there is no evidence to suggest he (or indeed Cameron) has done anything illegal.

What these cunts should be pilloried for is all the pompous, hypocritical posturing they have been undertaking in relation to tax avoidance and offshore schemes whilst simultaneously profiting from them. It's a moral issue not a legal one (at this stage).

Ha! I did say "...and other things". Really should have dropped the bikes bit though...

Thank you for so eloquently making my point for me. Again.

You can't go two words without unleashing a volley of abuse at whoever you are "debating" with (see for example the post I'm replying to. Or the previous one. Or the one before that). You keep abusing until people give up because that isn't a debate, it's just boring and unpleasant. It's the very antithesis of the causes you say you support - it's the tactics of the bulling Nasty Party.

I'm really not spoiling for a fight. That's why I try to explain myself and my position clearly without resorting to abuse.

You are not just exercising your opinions - you are trying to bully those you disagree with into silence. There is a big difference.

Hey ho indeed. If you are representative of the modern Left (which God forbid is the reality) then we are in for a long ride with the Tories.

For what it's worth I don't think you are a cunt. You are clearly passionate about something, but whatever that is, you aren't going to achieve it using your current manners and mindset.

You claim to be a fan of Corbyn, a man who bases his entire world-view on peace and reasoned debate. You are abusive and clearly have an issue with free speech.

Some of your posts seem to suggest that you wish to stand up for the downtrodden. Yet you try to shut down free speech and those in the minority trying to voice their opinions at every opportunity.

You seem to loath everything Tory. You call them the nasty party. Yet you wish slow deaths on men and women in the news who have even the slightest disagreement with you on anything. You are the very definition of nasty.

And why should I "fuck off"? Why do you wish slow deaths on people? You wouldn't do that to a stranger's face for slightly disagreeing with you on something. This is just internet-hard-man bluster. It's bizarre and doing you and the causes you supposedly support a huge disservice. It is exactly people like you that are keeping the Tories in power - people incapable of stringing a coherent sentence of rational thought together without resorting to abuse and violence.

LFGSS is a great place, where people from all walks of life can chat about bikes and other things and where different opinions and interesting debate can take place. You seem to want to run this forum like a dictatorship where only you decide what is right and wrong, what can and can't be said, and anyone who dares to question that should be abused into silence. I really just think your behavior is awful.

It is yawn. Utterly tedious in fact. You keep jumping down everyone's throat for posting anything that isn't on the greenhell list of approved sources or doesn't completely accord with your point of view (although your posts are generally so self-contradicting and hypocritical that it is virtually impossible to understand what your actual view is (other than wishing slow deaths on Tories/anyone who disagrees with you)). What is the point in only reading things you 100% agree with? It's healthy to read opinions and sources you don't agree with.

Didn't you get the memo? You're only allowed to link to the Guardian on this website - that bastion of non-partisan truths....

Ace - weirdly I've spent the last week looking at these for an adventure/baby transporting bike! Currently weighing up an On One Inbred or the Marin Pine Mountain 1. Would love to know how you get on with it. Are you going rear rack and seat for the baby? Looks like an awesome bike for the money, and so versatile with all the eyelets.