Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:24 am
I respect protests with realistic aims. 'Just stop oil' or 'ceasefire now' obviously havent been. To me they seem dumb, naive and petulant with little thought as to the consequences of what would happen if their demands were actually met or if they're even achiveable.

The idea that a ceasefire is dumb, naive and unachievable is simply baffling.

The plan to destroy Hamas - with little thought as to the consequences for ordinary Palestinians - is the only thing that's dumb, naive and petulant. And also highly unachievable.

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:29 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:01 pm

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:43 am

Are you forgetting that Corbyn was loto at a time where Tory divisions meant we had effectively a hung parliament? He actually did stop May's Brexit 3 times.

I'm not sure there's a real equivalence here.

May’s Brexit proposals were more or less what Labour are asking for now and could have voted for a better deal. She was bending over backwards to get a deal but same old Labour rather played politics than think what was best for the country then got us where we are now as the result of 2019. Labour now saying want to renegotiate the deal when could have had it ages ago. May was a Remainer , she was clever ceding ground but Labour were too obstinate to smell the coffee.

What utter nonsense. Mays Brexit deal failed because of the rabid right wing of the Tory party. Rees-Mogg and his gang in the so called ERG

You are wrong, May had a slim majority and Labour, instead of putting the country first played politics to bring her down which with the help of the ERG succeeded. Had they voted for her generous compromises, the 2019 election may not have occurred. Labour brought about the rise of Boris by their intransigence .

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 1:47 pm

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:29 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:01 pm

May’s Brexit proposals were more or less what Labour are asking for now and could have voted for a better deal. She was bending over backwards to get a deal but same old Labour rather played politics than think what was best for the country then got us where we are now as the result of 2019. Labour now saying want to renegotiate the deal when could have had it ages ago. May was a Remainer , she was clever ceding ground but Labour were too obstinate to smell the coffee.

What utter nonsense. Mays Brexit deal failed because of the rabid right wing of the Tory party. Rees-Mogg and his gang in the so called ERG

You are wrong, May had a slim majority and Labour, instead of putting the country first played politics to bring her down which with the help of the ERG succeeded. Had they voted for her generous compromises, the 2019 election may not have occurred. Labour brought about the rise of Boris by their intransigence .

May couldnt do Brexit because of the N.I border issue. Johnson lied & said it was all done when clearly it wasn't & still causing problems now.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 1:38 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:24 am
I respect protests with realistic aims. 'Just stop oil' or 'ceasefire now' obviously havent been. To me they seem dumb, naive and petulant with little thought as to the consequences of what would happen if their demands were actually met or if they're even achiveable.

The idea that a ceasefire is dumb, naive and unachievable is simply baffling.

The plan to destroy Hamas - with little thought as to the consequences for ordinary Palestinians - is the only thing that's dumb, naive and petulant. And also highly unachievable.

Its an argument for another thread, but if there was a ceasefire do you think they'll all live happily ever after? Hamas are an evil, undemocratic, backwards terrorist group and they must be defeated.

They won’t all live happily ever after without a ceasefire.

It’s that simple.

Joe315 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:05 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 1:47 pm

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:29 pm
What utter nonsense. Mays Brexit deal failed because of the rabid right wing of the Tory party. Rees-Mogg and his gang in the so called ERG

You are wrong, May had a slim majority and Labour, instead of putting the country first played politics to bring her down which with the help of the ERG succeeded. Had they voted for her generous compromises, the 2019 election may not have occurred. Labour brought about the rise of Boris by their intransigence .

May couldnt do Brexit because of the N.I border issue. Johnson lied & said it was all done when clearly it wasn't & still causing problems now.

She was falling at every hurdle not helped by Labour’s ulterior motives. All parties should have accepted the democratic vote especially the ‘reverse and stop Brexit’ lobby like the Lib Dems. It should have been a cross party effort but they were all pulling in different directions and individuals trying to make a name for themselves with their magical amendments. This along with the ‘fly in the ointment’ Speaker,Bercow was a recipe for disaster. They should have had the Country at heart at such an important time in my view.

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:52 pm

Joe315 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:05 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 1:47 pm

You are wrong, May had a slim majority and Labour, instead of putting the country first played politics to bring her down which with the help of the ERG succeeded. Had they voted for her generous compromises, the 2019 election may not have occurred. Labour brought about the rise of Boris by their intransigence .

May couldnt do Brexit because of the N.I border issue. Johnson lied & said it was all done when clearly it wasn't & still causing problems now.

She was falling at every hurdle not helped by Labour’s ulterior motives. All parties should have accepted the democratic vote especially the ‘reverse and stop Brexit’ lobby like the Lib Dems. It should have been a cross party effort but they were all pulling in different directions and individuals trying to make a name for themselves with their magical amendments. This along with the ‘fly in the ointment’ Speaker,Bercow was a recipe for disaster. They should have had the Country at heart at such an important time in my view.

Brexit result was accepted But leavers like jrm & fox & others wamted to change the pre nup divorce agreement after it had been signed. The rest of what you wrote just shows you really have no idea of what you are talking about.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:47 pm They won’t all live happily ever after without a ceasefire.

It’s that simple.

They'll be a lot happier with Hamas out of the way.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:50 pm The argument is that calling for a ceasefire is essentially calling for one side to ceasefire, because Hamas are not about to agree to anything.

Again, see Dunners point. I think if you look at Starmer’s position with that in mind, it’s that Starmer is interested in maintaining a position that is pragmatic and workable *if* it was held while in government, and is to some extent informed by wanting to put distance between Labour now and the idea that Labour previously were taking up position that could be seen as being possible through the luxury of never having to actually implement them

Thanks - that makes sense. But since when does pragmatic and workable policies and ideologies entice voters?
If starmer took a stand here, regards of impact on an actual ceasefire, there’s a fair chance the average person sees him as standing up and being authentic, no?
I assume the whole jezza thing before him means there’s absolutely no saying anything against Israel ever, as well

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:03 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:47 pm They won’t all live happily ever after without a ceasefire.

It’s that simple.

They'll be a lot happier with Hamas out of the way.

It's dumb and naive to think Hams can be destroyed. They need to talk.

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:05 pm I assume the whole jezza thing before him means there’s absolutely no saying anything against Israel ever, as well

This is exactly why Keir is afraid to call for a ceasefire.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 4:00 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:03 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 2:47 pm They won’t all live happily ever after without a ceasefire.

It’s that simple.

They'll be a lot happier with Hamas out of the way.

It's dumb and naive to think Hams can be destroyed. They need to talk.

If talking hams end up solving the crisis that would be some twist.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 5:09 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 4:00 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:03 pm

They'll be a lot happier with Hamas out of the way.

It's dumb and naive to think Hams can be destroyed. They need to talk.

If talking hams end up solving the crisis that would be some twist.

https://www.livekindly.com/this-ham-and ... you-vegan/

Sorry I'm not able to load just the picture.

If I wasn't already vegan I absolutely would be now.

Seems like there's a price to pay if you're a Labour MP and didn't vote for the ceasefire in certain constituencies.

I listened to a radio show this morning discussing the whole rebellion by Labour MPs and something came out in the discussion with one such rebel.

The labour amendment - which many of the rebels also voted for, called for a cessation of fighting, whereas the SNP amendment called for a ceasefire.

Are those two terms really so far removed from each other that a) the Party leadership couldn't or wouldn't substitute "ceasefire" for "cessation of fighting", or b) that the rebels couldn't or wouldn't be satisfied with "cessation of fighting".

It seems very strange and much about posturing on both sides of the argument. Unless I've misunderstood.

I thought the Labour motion (which all Labour MP's voted for) was calling for an "extended humanitarian pause", not a "cessation of fighting".

Whilst it may seem just like words, this article suggests that the different words/phrases/terms have some legal/diplomatic context: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/worl ... ances.html

faldO wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:40 pm Seems like there's a price to pay if you're a Labour MP and didn't vote for the ceasefire in certain constituencies.

Doesn't change the substance of the matches in Bethnal Green today but is there really noone else you could have linked to other than that neo-Nazi?

"the many trans people whose lives have been tragically cut short by violence"

Obviously, anyone being abused for how they choose to live their life is wrong, but have many trans people been killed for being trans? Even one person is too many, but this makes it sound like there's lots of trans people being killed.

Also, before anyone includes those who may have taken their own lives, the phrase "cut short by violence" seems to suggest that this is not about those.

The numbers quoted by activists are massively skewed by including murders of male sex workers in South America

Circa 1 a year in the UK

Statistically they’re literally the safest demographic in the U.K. (though, again, the fact that the gender identity of complainants and not trans status is what’s recorded could well skew that too, ironically)

I think I remember a stat that the demographic “male people who believe themselves to be women” are more likely to commit violent crime than be victims of it

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 10:10 am I think I remember a stat that the demographic “male people who believe themselves to be women” are more likely to commit violent crime than be victims of it

I have no doubt you remember that stat, whether it's true or not.

Hi Max.

This is the sort of thing that Labour should be focusing on. Not all that other bollocks. The right to form a union should be defended.