Independent Leyton Orient Forum

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:34 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:49 pm I see that the Labour Party is having to pay out £370k to the 7 whistleblowers (let that sink in for a min) in settlement of the recent court case. Now another 42 cases have been logged which potentially could bankrupt the party as the bill could run to millions.

A party which has a fine tradition of defending the weak and the poor and stands against racism being brought to its knees fighting against the very thing it used to beleive in and fight against.

Shame on Labour. An absolute disgrace of a party.
[/quote
More misinformation ....I know Thor you are not a malicious man, but your facts are wrong.
The legal team representing the Labour Party told the leadership, they thought they had an excellent chance of winning the case, yet despite this legal advice, Starmer decided to pay out this money.
This is amazing, absolutely unbelievable.
So why did he pay out these millions when he didnt have to?
Well your guess is as good as mine, but my gut feeling is, by not paying, if the legal team were right, then it makes Corbyn right all along, and there was no way starmer was having that.
Well thats speculation on my part, but the advice not to pay, from the legal team isnt speculation
Look it up Thor, its unbelievable.
glad its not my members subs they are using

Legal teams always think they have a good case but 50% of the time they lose. Many picking up additional costs in the process. I thought Starmer was ideally placed to make a judgement. Both from a legal and moral perspective.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:43 am

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:34 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:49 pm I see that the Labour Party is having to pay out £370k to the 7 whistleblowers (let that sink in for a min) in settlement of the recent court case. Now another 42 cases have been logged which potentially could bankrupt the party as the bill could run to millions.

A party which has a fine tradition of defending the weak and the poor and stands against racism being brought to its knees fighting against the very thing it used to beleive in and fight against.

Shame on Labour. An absolute disgrace of a party.
[/quote
More misinformation ....I know Thor you are not a malicious man, but your facts are wrong.
The legal team representing the Labour Party told the leadership, they thought they had an excellent chance of winning the case, yet despite this legal advice, Starmer decided to pay out this money.
This is amazing, absolutely unbelievable.
So why did he pay out these millions when he didnt have to?
Well your guess is as good as mine, but my gut feeling is, by not paying, if the legal team were right, then it makes Corbyn right all along, and there was no way starmer was having that.
Well thats speculation on my part, but the advice not to pay, from the legal team isnt speculation
Look it up Thor, its unbelievable.
glad its not my members subs they are using

Legal teams always think they have a good case but 50% of the time they lose. Many picking up additional costs in the process. I thought Starmer was ideally placed to make a judgement. Both from a legal and moral perspective.

Legal teams often think they are in a winning position, because perhaps they are actually in a winning position !
Think you might be missing the point. as i said in my earlier post, If the Labour party would have won the case, then it proves Corbyn right.
At the moment, Starmer is doing everything he can, to eradicate all traces of the left from Labour, all the old regime.
for him to admit, Corbyn was right, seriously damages his current position, so by paying out this money, he now gives the impression they ( Corbyn) would have lost.
Corbyn was right when he said it was a political decision, and not a legal one. That is obvious as anything can be

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:50 am

Dohnut wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:43 am

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:34 pm

Legal teams always think they have a good case but 50% of the time they lose. Many picking up additional costs in the process. I thought Starmer was ideally placed to make a judgement. Both from a legal and moral perspective.

Legal teams often think they are in a winning position, because perhaps they are actually in a winning position !
Think you might be missing the point. as i said in my earlier post, If the Labour party would have won the case, then it proves Corbyn right.
At the moment, Starmer is doing everything he can, to eradicate all traces of the left from Labour, all the old regime.
for him to admit, Corbyn was right, seriously damages his current position, so by paying out this money, he now gives the impression they ( Corbyn) would have lost.
Corbyn was right when he said it was a political decision, and not a legal one. That is obvious as anything can be

The vast majority of decisions taken by political parties are political. It’s what they do. A political party playing politics, whatever next!

Starmer has nothing to fear from Corbyn, whether he was right or wrong. Corbyn is history. Starmer has little to worry about on the election front either, not a tough act to follow there.

As for moving away from Corbynism. I make him correct. The Labour Party is in a sorry state and in need of a massive shake up. Starmer is doing just that. Time will tell if he improves the party fortunes but let’s face it, it could hardly get worse.

You never know, Starmer May even make Labour electable in the future, something Corbyn would never do.

As for the legal stuff, those opposing Labour will also have a legal team who are probably sure of their strong case too. One set of lawyers will win, the other set will lose. But the fall out for the party either way is likely to be damaging, raking up all the old stuff. A media feeding frenzy. Even if Corbyn were to win, the Labour Party will be the loser. Starmer is a smart cookie, it’s not about Corbyn but the party. Starmer is right.

RedO wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:23 pm It’s not Corbynism dohy.

It’s just a smattering of good old fashioned socialism, that’s all.

I get why people are trying to make it sound ‘cultish’, of course, but don’t be silly. It was never about one man. It’s about his policies.

If we knew what Sirkiers were, maybe the people who were behind Jezza would get behind him too.

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:58 am labour did, but wasn't it a tory proposal in the first place?

Willink's plan referred of a "publicly organised" rather than a "publicly provided" service; whereas Labour's plan brought hospitals into full national ownership.

Here's a background of Willink's paper proving that very point:
https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/n ... hite-paper

The fact remains that it was a Socialist British Labour Party that built and introduced the NHS.
https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/e ... th-service

Moreover, remind me again - how many times did Churchill's Tory Party vote AGAINST the NHS being introduced?

Oh yes - TWENTY ONE!

Who was one of the Tory M.P.'s who voted against Nye Bevan's NHS Plans - Henry Willink!

Dohnut wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:52 pm
Personally I believe his brand of socialism

HeyO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:47 am Dohnut’s a convert?

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:34 pm You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:32 pm
Not at all, I’ve voted Labour more than Conservative over the years..

Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:34 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:34 pm You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:34 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:34 pm You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:37 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:34 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:34 pm You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:37 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:34 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:34 pm You know they've gone for the wrong man when all the tories are fawning over him.

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:59 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:37 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:34 pm

So who is the right man? Somebody with next to no chance of winning an election. That is pointless. Labour, a party of protest or a party of Government.

What is pointless is a tory-lite Labour government.

As I said above, you know they've got the wrong man in charge when the tories are fawning all over him.

Almost like he understands you need to win Tory voters to win a majority

RLB lost (badly) get over it

PoliticOs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:41 pm Sounds like someone wants proportional representation! (Me too, already).