Keir Starmer at it again..

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Nope, never knew that.

 

[Tredman]

No, Jez didn't either

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...after-backing-artist-behind-antisemitic-mural

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I was speaking specifically about the term puppet master, I had no idea that term was an AS trope.

No mention of that being the case in the dictionary either.

 

[pr0sl0]

This is exactly what people have been saying about not being careful setting a dangerous precedent with this stuff as leader. Starmer's made his job much harder while not actually doing anything substantive to address antisemitism.

What we're talking about here - with RLB, Reeves, Reed, Corbyn - are all examples where there isn't any intent to be anti-semitic, but there is still an end result where a damaging narrative, trope, use of language, historical revisionism, etc, is promoted to the wider public. The problem here is that with RLB, what was given as the reason publicly ("promoting an antisemitic trope") was not actually what happened. If she'd just apologised immediately, it would have been a rap on the knuckles; it was umming and ahhing and prevaricating and trying to thread a needle to avoid backing down, direct insubordination, that meant it became a sacking offence. But the precedent that was set for other parties, and the wider public, is this: If you are a Labour shadow minister, there is zero tolerance for anything that can be considered antisemitic. Hence the annoyance over Reeves. Is it zero tolerance for the promotion of antisemitism Labour? Or is it zero tolerance for only one part of Labour? And what counts as "promotion of antisemitism" when we're talking about cases where these are individual shadow ministers not necessarily intending to be antisemitic, but instead are only implying acceptance of antisemitism, obliquely?

What Starmer's done is set the bar so high that it's now an open goal for opposition parties and journalists to not just demand censure of his shadow team, but to go directly for demanding resignations. And he can't really not do it without looking hypocritical.

 

[Tredman]

If I understand correctly he only sacked RLB as she wouldn’t apologise and withdraw? So all he needs to say to offenders who make a mistake (funny how the far left has so many mistakes, but anyway..) is ask them to withdraw and say they will think more in future? Not hard I think and you would hope normal for any person who (inadvertently) causes offence.

 

[Tony Towner]

If I understand correctly he only sacked RLB as she wouldn’t apologise and withdraw? So all he needs to say to offenders who make a mistake (funny how the far left has so many mistakes, but anyway..) is ask them to withdraw and say they will think more in future? Not hard I think and you would hope normal for any person who (inadvertently) causes offence.

RLBs issue was Starmer changed his his mind. He asked for a clarification which she did, but then asked for her to delete it afterwards

 

[Tredman]

RLBs issue was Starmer changed his his mind. He asked for a clarification which she did, but then asked for her to delete it afterwards

Where did you read that?

 

[Tony Towner]

Where did you read that?

https://twitter.com/RLong_Bailey/status/1276161744797401096?s=20

 

[Tredman]

https://twitter.com/RLong_Bailey/status/1276161744797401096?s=20

Doesn’t say he changed his mind though?

Edit - and neither is a ‘clarification’ an apology. You may as well say ‘I’m sorry you feel that way’.

 

[Tony Towner]

Well his office did so it depends how much you think he was responsible for their original request of clarification and working on the wording of that with her

 

[Paul]

Has it been proven anywhere that the IDF teach the US police Krav Maga ?

 

[Derby Wolf]

Has it been proven anywhere that the IDF teach the US police Krav Maga ?

You probably wouldn't need the IDF to teach it. I'm a (lapsed) Krav Maga student.

Imi who founded KM has traveled extensively and set up national and international Krav communities which have spawned regional branches. Indeed, Krav Maga predates Israel, it was developed by Imi in response to growing anti semitism in 1930's Hungary. We had serving police officers doing it off their own back and there were specific seminars throughout the year marketed at non-member law enforcement or door staff types.

The popularity of it has skyrocketed worldwide, I studied it at Newhampton Arts Centre and found a club under the same umbrella when I moved to Derby and Lincoln.

I've no doubt police are using Krav but I don't think it's nearly insidious as imagined, it's out there and easily accessible.

 

[Paul]

I'm a (lapsed) Krav Maga student.
.

Oh, I was going to fight you as well

 

[b3h]

How many weeks did it take to get your black belt?

 

[Paul]

Leaning more towards braces as a belt digs in when I lean forward

 

[Derby Wolf]

How many weeks did it take to get your black belt?

Only two but then, I'm double hard

 

[Templeton Peck]

Just abstained on the Overseas Operations Bill. Great stuff.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Starmer abstained from this vote and sacked 3 ministers for voting against it.

The UK government is getting ready to defy international law for the second time in two weeks. Before parliament this afternoon for its second reading, the overseas operations (service personnel and veterans) bill is their latest attempt to use domestic law as a means of reneging on the UK’s international obligations.

In current form, this bill effectively decriminalises torture, violates essential rule of law principles such as judicial and prosecutorial independence, and defies international human rights law. Just a week after Boris Johnson ripped up his own “oven-ready” Brexit deal (the withdrawal agreement), it would mean soldiers cannot be prosecuted for war crimes if five years have passed since the alleged date of the incident. Given the time scale involved with reporting most war crimes, this would provide British soldiers with de facto immunity for acts of torture and other breaches of the Geneva Convention.

This has obvious and disastrous implications for upholding justice for the victims of war crimes. The overwhelming evidence suggests that some British soldiers did commit acts of torture and other breaches of the Geneva Convention during the US-UK led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of complaints of mistreatment have been lodged by Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Only last month, evidence came to light that the Ministry of Defence had withheld evidence relating to the possible execution of 33 Afghan civilians in 2011.

In spite of this, there have been few prosecutions and even fewer convictions, with the director of the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA) ruling out further legal action against accused soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan in all but one case. There have been just seven prosecutions arising from the Iraq war. All of this is not to deny that vexatious claims against military personnel are a possibility, but rather that it’s pure confection to suggest the problem requires this kind of extreme solution.

Clearly, this bill is not really about protecting veterans, which is why it has no support from senior legal military figures. Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett – Britain’s most senior military judge, who was not even consulted before this legislation was published – has called on the Defence Secretary to “think again” about these “ill-conceived” proposals.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Sorry TP, only just seen your post.

 

[BGreenWolf]

My understanding is that Labour's plan was to amend it further down the line, and to whip against it if those amendments failed to pass.

Sacking people for voting against it in the early stages is daft, though.