Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

To be fair I know that the conservatives have shut down some of their youth wings. The difference here is that labour aren't and won't. Can you see labour taking any sort of action against a woman who is Muslim/Minority? That'll be Christmas and New Year all embroiled in one. The other day the conservatives dismissed a councilor for racist tweets while this lady gets to continue being an integral part of momentum and uni leadership at a university that didn't report the Manchester bombers clear extreme views because they were against prevent. If people can't see the double standard in that I'm not sure what I was trying to achieve here.

The fact that she has deleted all her racist, bigoted tweets shows that she knows that they were wrong and should give enough grounds for dismissal from all her roles as a leader at said university.

Edited by magnkarl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

To be fair I know that the conservatives have shut down some of their youth wings. The difference here is that labour aren't and won't. Can you see labour taking any sort of action against a woman who is Muslim/Minority and a woman? That'll be Christmas and New Year all embroiled in one. The other day the conservatives dismissed a councilor for racist tweets while this lady gets to continue being an integral part of momentum and uni leadership at a university that didn't report the Manchester bombers clear extreme views because they were against prevent. If people can't see the double standard in that I'm not sure what I was trying to achieve here.

The fact that she has deleted all her racist, bigoted tweets shows that she knows that they were wrong and should give enough grounds for dismissal from all her roles as a leader at said university.

u ok babe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

u ok babe?

Nah, it's just a hot topic at our university at the moment. The legislation is clear, and if the person who utters hate speech/bigoted statements are of the right colour (read, white) and sex (read, man) they usually get the whole book thrown at them within a day. If the person doing said things is either of the below..

1) Ethnic minority

2) Not sis gendered 

3) Homosexual

4) Female with a mix of the above

..they usually take months to even try to punish. There is a very clear bias towards certain people in university and places of knowledge and these are hard to do anything with. Momentum has racked up more than double the complaints than any other organisation at our uni since New Year alone, and the way it's going it will take a whole lot of resources to get anywhere with these complaints because the people who commit the acts are untouchable. Were they committed by for example cons. youth it'd happen in less than a week. 

I don't know why, but our current climate has given certain people a get out of jail free card to act like obnoxious little kids to other people. There is a very clear victimisation from certain groups that makes them feel entitled to being absolute jackasses to their fellow students and staff without any reaction back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I might be mis reading the above, but it sounds like the issue here is a university that's not capable of managing it's own rules or understanding the law.

Somebody in charge needs to get a grip if equality isn't being administered equally.

Can't blame students, they are by definition, still learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Firstly, I don't know what 'all embroiled in one' means. If it means 'all rolled into one', with the implication that it would be unusual or astonishing because of its infrequency, then I have to disagree. Labour have internally disciplined a number of members in recent times who were either female, Muslim or both. It's a matter of public record. 

To be clear, those are two different allegations against two different people. 'This lady' can't, and shouldn't, be punished for a tweet (the #ifIwaspresident one) that she wrote as a child, while not at university, that doesn't come close to meeting the legal definition of hate speech. Her other comments that you quoted about male and female friends may be dumb, but are clearly not illegal and 'saying something dumb' isn't grounds for dismissing someone from a democratically-elected post (or else we'd have no Tory MP's, arf arf). If you have any other evidence of something she said or did that you think would constitute grounds for dismissing her, please feel free to share them. 

On the university, your post states a causal link - 'a university that didn't report the Manchester bombers clear extreme views because they were against prevent' - that I don't believe is settled fact at all. A very critical report in the Express nevertheless states:

'Salman Abedi attended Salford University between 2014 and 2016, where he studied business and management.

He left the university last year, and it is currently unknown whether he was radicalised during his studies or afterward.'

Prevent is a reactive programme. If Abedi did not show any signs of radicalisation during his time at university, it would make absolutely no difference what the university's policy on Prevent is, because nobody would have referred him anyway. We need to find out if it's actually true or not first before stating that the university prevented de-radicalisation opportunities. 

Deleting tweets obviously isn't grounds for dismissing someone from a democratically-elected post. 

Maybe you should report your concerns to the police, if you believe that there is a conspiracy at your place of employment to undermine equality legislation?

All I see is a lot of excuses to allow people to be inflammatory, bigoted and to continue in the same way of deteriorating manners and proper debate. Let's not question anything until it's 100% proven several years down the road. You don't think a head of the university being vocally against reporting people who are showcasing extremist views is conducive to allowing elements of said university to become radicalised? It doesn't take a lot of thought power to put 2 and 2 together. Allowing someone who is posting inflammatory tweets like this to become student union president shows how two faced this whole argument is. No one would vote for said person if the racism was aimed from a 16 year old white kid to a person of another colour.

Also by the same thought everyone is allowed to be a dickhead so let's ignore it and not try to do something with said dickheads. There is a very clear element to labour's current voting group who is extremely aggressive, anti free speech and loud. These people hide behind things like ethnicity, religion and sex to behave like something I think is new to UK politics. The women of the 70's had a cause to protest - momentum protests anything for the sake of causing mayhem (at least at our uni). 

This incident is a lot like the Naz Shah incident, saying that she was only 'joking' about wanting to see Jews transported from Israel. The alarming thing is that this woman's 'jokes' will actually win her support from certain sections of our society. In the eyes of some, it's perfectly okay to be racist as long as the majority is the target. The views expressed by Ms Ibrahim are abhorrent, her excuse that she was only 16 is a graphic counter argument for those who are calling for 16 year olds to have the right to vote. If you want votes for 16 year olds you will get idiots like this deciding who will be in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2017 at 23:32, HanoiVillan said:

Can you spell out a little more clearly how this student is 'one of Jezza's momentum ladies'? I'm not saying she isn't, but the link you provided doesn't make clear any connection. 

zamzam.jpg.b336866b65a17b7c2ba57828681ba6e2.jpg

She's a lib dem, clearly.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Allowing someone who is posting inflammatory tweets like this to become student union president shows how two faced this whole argument is

That doesn't really make sense, does it? Because it assumes that what she twittered years before she stood for student Uni President was known by the voters in the election and by some sort of overseeing arbiter of good taste and that it was still deemed OK, even though it was known about.

It seems likely that it was not known, that no one "allowed" her to become elected despite being aware of the sins and that it isn't therefore "twofaced". It seems more likely to me that she's been (and might still be) a bit of a dick, basically, and now some people have found that out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

If you want votes for 16 year olds you will get idiots like this deciding who will be in power.

There is a perfectly logical reasoning behind Labour's manifesto pledge to lower the voting age to 16.

A sixteen-year-old is considered too daft to drive a car, purchase alcohol and tobacco, or watch a film rated for adults and is treated as a juvenile in a court of law.

So therefore a sixteen- year-old is considered daft enough to vote Labour. 

Edited by MakemineVanilla
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh this has got testy! 

I can't remember whether I posted already but hey ho, let's go! @magnkarl, I have to say I think @HanoiVillan makes some good points and as someone who does go on tv every now and again I would hate for my past to outweigh who I am now....not that's there's much on me, but I feel everyone deserves a reprieve, or even two.
Not everyone stays flawed or even acts on flawed views, Tim Farron for example. 

But fighting for equal weight of opinion is important and hopefully that brings me to a few things you posted earlier on in this thread, on Momentum and university.
I campaigned for two parties during the election and was a mouthpiece for one candidate on twitter. Though I only get one kind of attention, even on here, and that's for being a 'Tory'.
Now maybe that's because I like to focus on policy, which all too often includes Labour failure, but over the past decade or so I have been kicked, spat at, pushed and dismissed by a whole host of different Labour supporters. And that's before I get to present a project to a Labour council member!
While 'squaring up' (madness, I'm 6"3) has not happened for a few years now (since leaving Brum), the vile nature of conversation from Momentum - and sheer number, which they all too often see as a debating position - worries me a lot. 

So many of them are only fixated on politics and they rarely show respect to policy. Even at rallies not organised by them! Imo that's bloody dangerous and I hope they do grow up, as @bickster  expects them to But I can't be alone in thinking policy comes before politics, and if I am, I can only thank my university education.

I had two main lecturers; one loose cotton wearing socialist who wore no shoes (anywhere) and the other, a tweed suited beardy economist. They actively debated policy warfare in most classes and of course never revealed their party loyalty....or even hinted!
But as an old polytechnic we perhaps had a stronger variation of views than many redbricks. I loved that people were not only allowed, but encouraged to express themselves, so we could debate and not prejudge the merit of their view. If that's not happening in politics, is it happening in education/university? 

And that's again why momentum need to grow up fast. Not only to help Corbyn identify how he will enact his manifesto but to help Labour voters and MP's drive that message at the Conservatives and other parties. 

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

or  and 'saying something dumb' isn't grounds for dismissing someone from a democratically-elected post (else we'd have no Tory MP's, arf arf).

Too true. Labour ones don't contribute enough for us to judge how dumb they are (arf, arf);) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

All I see is a lot of excuses to allow people to be inflammatory, bigoted and to continue in the same way of deteriorating manners and proper debate.

 

 

This sounds like the current anti-PC brigade that has swept across the UK and the US to be honest. Your sentence isn't indicative of Labour voters or uni students.

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

There is a very clear element to labour's current voting group who is extremely aggressive, anti free speech and loud. 

All millions of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There is a perfectly logical reasoning behind Labour's manifesto pledge to lower the voting age to 16.

A sixteen-year-old is considered too daft to drive a car, purchase alcohol and tobacco, or watch a film rated for adults and is treated as a juvenile in a court of law.

So therefore a sixteen- year-old is considered daft enough to vote Labour. 

While at this point it would gain them move votes it would help smaller parties too....plus, it might help actually educate an electorate and increase turnout at local elections.

Lot's of good reasons for it but without it being delivered alongside electoral reform, it's for the few and not the many.

Edited by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

All millions of them?

Far from it, but I think it's undeniable that there are a significant bunch of 'em. Most are lovely, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â