By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
1. They won't stand a by-election and will abandon their constituencies for more 'winable' seats at the next election. 2. They won't reveal anything about their funding and have set themselves up as a private company to avoid publicly declaring anything. 3. Their website is sh1te. 4. They've said what they're against but nobody can name a single policy they are for. 5. They've been endorsed by Katie Hopkins and Pickles. 6. Angela Smith was only 5 mins into BBC Politics appearance today talking about leaving due to racism before she described non-white people as having a funny tinge.
Integrity indeed. I'm delighted that the politically homeless are now able to come in from the cold.
No, not at the moment
-17
Independent Group on 15:23 - Feb 22 with 2501 views
Ah sweet! A similar recent thing happened here actually. The Bussey Building in Peckham used to be a v similar space for us squat types before the yuppies turned it into a vegan cafe/'art centre'. Balls.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
I apologise for the delay in processing your application but I am pleased to announce that you have now fulfilled all criteria for membership of the Labour Party.
Welcome.
Yours Faithfully,
Your Local Labour Representative.
0
Independent Group on 15:47 - Feb 22 with 2401 views
Independent Group on 09:30 - Feb 22 by GlasgowBlue
This will be an awkward one for him. Ian Austin hasn't left Labour to join TIG.
It will be interesting to see how zed attacks the son of a Holocaust survivor who lost his his mother and two teenage sisters in the death camps and has left the Labour party because of antisemitism.
Eh up pal, me again.
Just thought I’d point out something which has come to light that somewhat reshapes the image you’ve tried to paint of Austin here.
I was invited to give evidence to the HoC Education committee on Holocaust Education. Non-adversarial, fact-collecting. I started to say that we should avoid British triumphalism when talking about this to children and Ian Austin interrupted me and aggressively argued at me. https://t.co/93fZKZHZgV
Rosen was explaining how important it was to teach children that as the Nazis didn’t make it to Britain, there’s no way of knowing if they would have done the same here as they did elsewhere. Essentially trying to warn against teaching children that the British spirit is the reason the same atrocities didn’t happen here.
Austin, as he’s well known for, kept interrupting him confrontationally and then responded by saying “Hold on, you’ve had your say. The reason, professor Rosen, that they didn’t invade Britain is because Britain fought back.”
Is a non-Jew who berates and challenges a Jewish man’s view of the holocaust really somebody you want to use as an reputable example of someone who comes at antisemitism from the right place? Or is Rosen another Jew you want to discredit? Austin’s a Gammon who reacts like this every time somebody questions British triumphalism.
Just thought I’d point out something which has come to light that somewhat reshapes the image you’ve tried to paint of Austin here.
I was invited to give evidence to the HoC Education committee on Holocaust Education. Non-adversarial, fact-collecting. I started to say that we should avoid British triumphalism when talking about this to children and Ian Austin interrupted me and aggressively argued at me. https://t.co/93fZKZHZgV
Rosen was explaining how important it was to teach children that as the Nazis didn’t make it to Britain, there’s no way of knowing if they would have done the same here as they did elsewhere. Essentially trying to warn against teaching children that the British spirit is the reason the same atrocities didn’t happen here.
Austin, as he’s well known for, kept interrupting him confrontationally and then responded by saying “Hold on, you’ve had your say. The reason, professor Rosen, that they didn’t invade Britain is because Britain fought back.”
Is a non-Jew who berates and challenges a Jewish man’s view of the holocaust really somebody you want to use as an reputable example of someone who comes at antisemitism from the right place? Or is Rosen another Jew you want to discredit? Austin’s a Gammon who reacts like this every time somebody questions British triumphalism.
Just thought I’d point out something which has come to light that somewhat reshapes the image you’ve tried to paint of Austin here.
I was invited to give evidence to the HoC Education committee on Holocaust Education. Non-adversarial, fact-collecting. I started to say that we should avoid British triumphalism when talking about this to children and Ian Austin interrupted me and aggressively argued at me. https://t.co/93fZKZHZgV
Rosen was explaining how important it was to teach children that as the Nazis didn’t make it to Britain, there’s no way of knowing if they would have done the same here as they did elsewhere. Essentially trying to warn against teaching children that the British spirit is the reason the same atrocities didn’t happen here.
Austin, as he’s well known for, kept interrupting him confrontationally and then responded by saying “Hold on, you’ve had your say. The reason, professor Rosen, that they didn’t invade Britain is because Britain fought back.”
Is a non-Jew who berates and challenges a Jewish man’s view of the holocaust really somebody you want to use as an reputable example of someone who comes at antisemitism from the right place? Or is Rosen another Jew you want to discredit? Austin’s a Gammon who reacts like this every time somebody questions British triumphalism.
Just thought I’d point out something which has come to light that somewhat reshapes the image you’ve tried to paint of Austin here.
I was invited to give evidence to the HoC Education committee on Holocaust Education. Non-adversarial, fact-collecting. I started to say that we should avoid British triumphalism when talking about this to children and Ian Austin interrupted me and aggressively argued at me. https://t.co/93fZKZHZgV
Rosen was explaining how important it was to teach children that as the Nazis didn’t make it to Britain, there’s no way of knowing if they would have done the same here as they did elsewhere. Essentially trying to warn against teaching children that the British spirit is the reason the same atrocities didn’t happen here.
Austin, as he’s well known for, kept interrupting him confrontationally and then responded by saying “Hold on, you’ve had your say. The reason, professor Rosen, that they didn’t invade Britain is because Britain fought back.”
Is a non-Jew who berates and challenges a Jewish man’s view of the holocaust really somebody you want to use as an reputable example of someone who comes at antisemitism from the right place? Or is Rosen another Jew you want to discredit? Austin’s a Gammon who reacts like this every time somebody questions British triumphalism.
oh, so that's how you're going to attack him. where did you get that idea from?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Independent Group on 21:03 - Feb 22 with 2130 views
Can anyone give me a precis please, or would that be a waste of their time and mine?
Lots of attacks from Zed on the defecting MP’s he isn’t worried about, unreadable long posts etc. Various posters argue back but most give up immediately, Glassers goes for ages and even he eventually gives up, finally Lowhouse standing
Zed probably sees this as some evidence that others have no response and he’s won, others more likely just bored of the tedium
So in summary - no, don’t bother
Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
