Jump to content

David Icke - Son of God

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Icke - Son of God

  1. Yeah, sounds like she’s actually done quite well here. I don’t think having to pay 20m for her own legal costs is what I would class as doing well mind. Could have been worse, but, her aim was to win the case and have her legal costs covered in that. I’ve absolutely no idea how the process works, but I assume you enter these legal situations with the knowledge you may have to pony up for the bill and that bill may be quite substantial. Losing and only having to pay your half seems quite unusual. I genuinely don’t give that much of a fuck, I just read the article assuming it would say one thing and instead it said another.
  2. Have I misread that or does it say that she doesn’t have to pay Barclays legal costs even though they won?
  3. Oh, we absolutely would not be publishing a lengthy statement on our website and talking to SSN about what is a reasonably inconsequential judgement if Bruce wasn’t shitting the bed.
  4. It’s all manoeuvring isn’t it? We’ve made a stink about one of the panel members being biased, and forced it out into the open, presumably in an effort to ensure there’s even more scrutiny on the process. Means nought in terms of the likelihood of the takeover.
  5. I imagine anyone with an FA level 1 badge could rock up to the training ground and they’d look like Arrigo Sacchi in comparison to Bruce.
  6. That’s probably the wrongest thing I’ve seen posted on here, which is quite some achievement.
  7. Giving Shelvey a new deal at the same time was a much bigger problem.
  8. The more bodies we have between Joelinton and the football pitch the better.
  9. Love how much they hate him. It's strange as well like, but then again, they are a bunch of weird c***s. They hate him because his appointment proved everything they spend their lives trying to refute - that we’re a relatively big club, that we’re much more relevant than them, that despite being shit we have a pedigree and a profile that they could only dream of ever having.
  10. Funniest part of this entire saga was right at the very start, during the morning of the Companies House changes, when Edwards steamed in to shit on it and had to delete his tweet after 10 mins because someone at the Telegraph clearly had a word to say Burt had the exclusive.
  11. There’s a risk we’re going to go round in circles, so this is my final post for now. Very little of the wider debate about Labour and anti-Semitism has been in good faith. It’s been used as a wedge issue to marginalise and undermine a left wing political project and the figurehead of that particular project. Every concession aimed at defusing the situation has just ratcheted up the stakes and made everything worse. Having lived the last 36 months I can say with absolute certainty there is no course of action that Corbyn or Labour could have taken that would have rendered this a non-issue. We can debate the merits of Corbyn’s statement - where he said something the EHRC report unequivocally stated members be allowed to say and discuss - until Labour win a majority, but there was already massive pressure from the same bad actors that have turned anti-Semitism into a circus before the report was published that he be suspended/excluded. Whether Starmer would have followed through or not I do not know, but the idea this would fade away is patently false. So with that in mind do you bend every which way to appease these swivel eyed loons or do you draw a line in the sand? Neither is going to have a good outcome. For my money Corbyn’s biggest mistake early on was thinking that all of these people were acting in good faith and they’d actually want to resolve the issue. He indulged them and allowed them to dictate the narrative pretty much unchallenged, until it was too late. Now I think Starmer is cuter than that - he knows what these people are about but he is utterly convinced he can appeal to their better judgement by going “hey, at least I’m not going to nationalise anything”. What he doesn’t understand is that they’re not going to stop until any chance of an internationalist social democrat gaining power is rendered pretty much nil. Even if they get Corbyn’s head on a spike their energies will just shift to screeching about someone or something else. His more immediate problem is that he and/or his GS made a rash decision to appease one side of the argument that couldn’t be stood up in any legal sense so had to be rowed back. He’s pissed off everyone, and we’re going to be discussing this for six months until Corbyn gets the whip automatically reinstated and this begins again.
  12. You can still do a lot of good even while carrying opportunists- they are actually pretty useful as they'll do as they are told as long as they keep their cushy arrangements. Labour aren't in a position to be too choosy. Competent, electable candidates and potential shadow ministers need to be supported without needed to be hitting every note on policy. The broader problem with the Labour Party is that it’s a become a clearing house for much more lucrative job opportunities for too many people in both the PLP and party’s management. There are too many operators who would rather nuke the place than support some mildly beneficial social democratic policy platform which may them damaged goods in the media outlets, think tanks and consultancies that would otherwise give them a six figure salary once they leave Parliament. You can’t ‘carry’ these people. They’re wreckers and yet they run the operation. They did it to Brown when they thought they could get David Miliband in number 10, they undermined Ed from day one and they poured all petrol over the gaff when Corbyn won. They don’t care about political power as madras explained it because they have institutional power, and that’s all that really matters. No, he doesn't have to. But he could have chosen to fade off into the backbenches and instead decided to throw petrol on the fire- it was releasing the statement that got him kicked out- not the report itself. How would a full apology (even if he didn't mean it) changed what his acolytes or detractors think of him is posterity? This could have helped draw a line under the whole affair, maybe to make Labour look like a functioning party. But here we now have Lavery piping up, and it's only a matter of time before Burgon is reactivated and the schism is back in the public eye. So what maybe Corbyn could have done is swallowed some pride, realised the dice have not rolled his way (and may be loaded against him) and say what he's more or less told to because ultimately he wants Labour in power. In saying that, I'm assuming he does. Look, the Tories HATE each other. They elected a leader absolutely reviled by MPs. But they know how to keep things largely in house and seemingly Labour don't. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to placate these people. Starmer is finding this out now. The calls for Corbyn to be suspended for crimes unknown started before the report was published, and would have carried on regardless of Corbyn’s actions after the report’s publications. The idea that there’s a concession that can be made to nip this in the bud and return to normal is fanciful. We were told it would end with the IHRA definitions being implemented. It didn’t. We were told it would end if Jeremy Corbyn personally expelled racists like Ken Livingston. It didn’t, and actually ended up being a cudgel used to beat him with because it proved his was interfering in cases. We were told it would end when the party paid a load of people off for doing their jobs badly rather than see them in court. Guess what? There’s a pattern emerging here. There are so many layers to this entire debacle it’s ceased to actually be about what it was purportedly about in the first place. That’s what I find so infuriating. There are genuine instances of anti Semitism in the Labour Party and those dickheads need to be rooted out. Instead we’re told the problem will only be solved if this lone individual is tarred and feathered. It’s utter bollocks - it’s not proper, it doesn’t deal with the issue and even if it was and did it’s not even true. This is something that will be dredged up again and again and again whenever it’s beneficial to the wreckers on the inside or the anti-Labour voices outside. As for the Tories, they’ve spent the last three years engaged in all our war against one another, but that’s what the Tories do. No one who shapes opinion really gives a toss.
  13. The problem with this approach is that it assumes power is the goal, and not that power is something you attain to achieve your goal. We know from the bulging bank accounts of all these Tory donors with recently created medical supply companies what motivates the Conservative party. What motivates Labour? I think I know the answer, but I also know there are fundamental disagreements about what that means and how sincere certain people are when they say it. EDIT: Would you believe I only logged on here today to see if there was any takeover crack?
  14. Not sure it's fair to call him self-centred when he was responding to an inquiry that was directly into him and his leadership. And further, that (rightly or wrongly) he believed was partly out to get him. Anyway, it can't be about Corbyn personally forever, it should be about the policies of the Labour Party and where Starmer takes them. I think the diplomatic move would have been to accept the report findings, apologise for his role, draw a line under it and move on. He knew exactly what he was doing here and I find his behaviour a deliberate attempt to undermine Starmer and incredibly selfish. Many of us supported him despite our misgivings and he's had his chance and failed, he either needs to work for the benefit of the party or f*** off at this point. The thing is he’s right to be aggrieved. He’s right to say that the issue was dramatically overstated by political opponents (Simon Heffer was going on radio saying, unchallenged, Labour were going to reopen Auchwitz for fucks sake). He’s right to do it not only because it’s a lie, but because it’s historically incredibly fucking dangerous when a political tendency puts the fear of god into one group about another group. It’s an absolutely reprehensible tactic and the fact the people guilty of it are not only going to get away with it but be feted for years to come as the vanguard of anti-racism is fucking sickening. The other reason which he should be aggrieved is that the report - while damning of the party’s process as a whole - does actually back up pretty much all the counter points that LOTO’s office made over the last few years. It was unfit for purpose from the off, the people initially in charge of the process (many of whom are now a great deal richer because of Starmer’s actions) were either inept or being obstructive, and that things did improve substantially when Jennie Formby was appointed. It basically contradicts the Panorama documentary, which should be a good indication of how farcical the narrative around this entire saga has been. I don’t think anyone should have to sacrifice themselves and their life’s work at the alter of God knows what to appease political opponents.
  15. Maybe once, but you don't need leaflets through the door and gazebos outside Home Bargains any more. Material is hyper-scalable online. You need at least a few of the national papers on your side. The Tories have far fewer members, most of them are on death's doorstep and aren't the sort who want to engage with the general public. Yet there they are, the most inept bunch to ever take seats in the Commons with an 80-seat majority. No-one forced Long-Bailey to do that appalling interview in the Guardian. No-one made Corbyn put out a the deliberately provocative response to the AS report. They did this either in full knowledge of the consequences of their actions or out of utter naivety. The 'purge' can be stopped not by overthrowing the leadership but when senior figures engage their brain before speaking. Starmer was never going to restore the whip (as pointed above, for what it's worth). He had to draw a line between the NEC decision and his own. The most effective behaviour change mechanism in campaigning is actually speaking to people and Labour can call on a lot of people. Labour’s approach to online was effective in 2017, but has absolutely no cut through now for a variety of reasons. Chasing the approval of UK newspapers is at the very best unedifying and more likely completely pointless. But this conversation about the vehicle distracts from the bigger problem, which is messaging. What Labour had in 2017, lacked in 2019 and I fear will struggle to articulate going forward is a clear story and vision for the country. In 2017 they were able to identify big points of differentiation, usually conventional Tory weak spots, and say why it was bad and what Labour would do differently because for once they were actually going to do something differently! Fuck, they even managed it for stuff like foreign affairs where Corbyn was seen to be utterly piss weak. They forgot that in 2019, and it was just grab bag of policy ideas which sounded completely fanciful without context. Starmer’s current approach appears to have misidentified the problem, so instead of trying to say what a Labour ran-UK would look like he’s focusing on trying to shadow the government as closely as possible and make it an issue of competence. Not only is that hilarious given the events of the past few days, but it plays into the Tories hands because they will change the manager at some point in the next four years. Whether he was going to restore the whip or not is moot. This is colossally stupid stuff from the party leadership. They’ve managed to make a febrile situation worse at every step.
  16. He’s been shit on a number of issues. He was painfully out of his depth during the BLM protests, hasn’t done anything to address underlying anti-trans or Islamaphobia in the party, made a pigs ear of the spy cops and overseas operations bills, and - apart from getting ahead of the game on a second lockdown - has had some terrible positions on COVID. I appreciate a lot of these will fall under the category of niche concerns that only party members give a toss about, but they’re concerns none the less. If you can’t enthuse your base, your canvassers, your party volunteers then you’re knackered.
  17. That's true, but Starmer has still f***ed up the response. I mean, it's evidently true, not a single person is happy with him over this. I'm not honestly sure what Starmer could have done differently though. He's been too wishy washy tbh, Bluf is right in that he should've went all in to kick him out as that would've been a vote winner for non labour-member voters as just about all who I speak to find him an embarrassment. They would have got rinsed in court though, which isn’t a good look for a party headed up by the ex-DPP.
  18. He was expected and probably obligated to respond to the report. He did, and I think he was correct to point out the scale of the problem was grossly over represented. I appreciate that’s not a popular view but as a (former) Labour member I think it’s important to try to contextualise the size of the problem and point out that only a small number of people are cranks. It’s not 12 months since Labour canvassers were being beaten up in the street. Starmer has absolutely fucked it by jumping into bed with the Blairite nutters who think the path to electability runs through purging the party of anyone with a left wing view of the world. He/Evans jumped to suspend despite the fact they could never stand it up, but it had the loons baying for blood and when the NEC had to allow him back in they turned their guns on him. Now he’s removing the whip, which will satisfy no one but just allow this to trundle on.
  19. Considering they’ve continually had to infer that Corbyn said something he didn’t suggests they knew they were on shakey ground. ‘Bringing the party into disrepute’ is a catch all category that allows them to suspend anyone for anything, however you obviously need something more tangible to actually exclude. This was going to end up in court, and not one panel member seems to have want to stand behind an exclusion. There probably was a way that Starmer could have navigated this without taking too much damage. Instead he’s just manage to alienate absolutely everyone. Top politicking.
  20. I highly doubt the swivel eyed loons who want his head on a stick will see it as defused. Reckon we’re about to enter a whole new level of Corbyn/anti-Semitism crankery. QAnon but for centrist dads and UK political commentators. Something to keep us warm on these cold winter nights.
  21. the tab is half his size. They don’t make superkings like they used to.
  • Create New...