Off topic thread (to the tower)

[Barry]

My reply was to Calico Jack. :hattip

[papasmurf]

You are just mud slinging. And repeating it because the election is getting close?

Well Sally-Ann Hart, who is standing as a Tory candidate is being investigated for antisemitism:-

More at link:-

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-07/three-tory-candidates-face-party-probe-over-anti-semitism-allegations/">https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-07/thr ... legations/">https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-07/three-tory-candidates-face-party-probe-over-anti-semitism-allegations/



7 December 2019 at 5:16pm

Three Tory candidates face party probe over anti-Semitism allegations



Sally-Ann Hart, who is standing as a Tory candidate in Amber Rudd's former Hastings and Rye seat, shared a video in 2017 which implied Jewish philanthropist George Soros controls the EU.

St Helens South and Whiston candidate Richard Short questioned in a tweet in 2013 whether journalist Melanie Phillips's allegiance was to the UK or Israel.

And Lee Anderson, who is running in Ashfield and Eastwood, is said to be an active member of a Facebook group where Soros conspiracies are promoted.

A Conservative Party spokeswoman said: "These matters are being investigated.

"Discrimination or abuse of any kind is wrong, and the Conservative Party takes decisive action to deal with any incidents of hatred, abuse or intimidation.

"We are committed to stamping out the scourge of anti-Semitism in our society and supporting our Jewish community.

[Barry]

The Conservative Party is investigating three parliamentary candidates over alleged anti-Semitism, including Sally-Ann Hart who came under fire yesterday for her 'vile' comments on disabled people. The Tory candidate for Hastings and Rye sparked outrage on Thursday when she told a hustings event that people with learning disabilities should be paid less than minimum wage as 'they don't understand money'.



https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-candidate-sally-ann-hart-investigated-anti-semitism-day-vile-disabled-pay-comments-11406824/">https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-can ... -11406824/">https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-candidate-sally-ann-hart-investigated-anti-semitism-day-vile-disabled-pay-comments-11406824/



All in all this woman sounds a right little charmer.  :roll:

You already posted this once but you failed to engage when I asked you a question:

Can you tell me what was incorrect about what she said, I mean the direct quotes, not the lies the Independent made up, or are we all supposed to get offended on someone else's behalf because the Independent is running out of mud to sling at the Tories? (Also note - Right wing Spectator magazine  ::  )

You see you picked on an article which has headlines which don't fit what she actually said. Then, when challenged, you don't engage, because you know there is really not a great deal of substance to your claim.

You are just mud slinging. And repeating it because the election is getting close?

[papasmurf]

The fact that a publication called "Welfare Weekly" exists speaks volumes about modern society.

That does not detract from what callous bastards the Tories and the DWP and DWP contractors are.

[DeppityDawg]

The fact that a publication called "Welfare Weekly" exists speaks volumes about modern society.

[papasmurf]

The Conservative Party is investigating three parliamentary candidates over alleged anti-Semitism, including Sally-Ann Hart who came under fire yesterday for her 'vile' comments on disabled people. The Tory candidate for Hastings and Rye sparked outrage on Thursday when she told a hustings event that people with learning disabilities should be paid less than minimum wage as 'they don't understand money'.



https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-candidate-sally-ann-hart-investigated-anti-semitism-day-vile-disabled-pay-comments-11406824/">https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-can ... -11406824/">https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-candidate-sally-ann-hart-investigated-anti-semitism-day-vile-disabled-pay-comments-11406824/



All in all this woman sounds a right little charmer.  :roll:

The Tories are vile to disabled people:-



https://welfareweekly.com/man-born-without-arms-or-legs-told-to-prove-he-is-disabled-enough-for-benefits/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+welfareweekly+%28Welfare+Weekly%29">https://welfareweekly.com/man-born-with ... +Weekly%29">https://welfareweekly.com/man-born-without-arms-or-legs-told-to-prove-he-is-disabled-enough-for-benefits/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+welfareweekly+%28Welfare+Weekly%29





https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/health/pregnant-mum-from-hayling-island-with-jaw-eating-bug-nearly-lost-her-unborn-child-during-two-year-fight-to-get-pip-payments-1-9167004">https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/health/pre ... -1-9167004">https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/health/pregnant-mum-from-hayling-island-with-jaw-eating-bug-nearly-lost-her-unborn-child-during-two-year-fight-to-get-pip-payments-1-9167004

[Calico Jack]

The Conservative Party is investigating three parliamentary candidates over alleged anti-Semitism, including Sally-Ann Hart who came under fire yesterday for her 'vile' comments on disabled people. The Tory candidate for Hastings and Rye sparked outrage on Thursday when she told a hustings event that people with learning disabilities should be paid less than minimum wage as 'they don't understand money'.



https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-candidate-sally-ann-hart-investigated-anti-semitism-day-vile-disabled-pay-comments-11406824/">https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-can ... -11406824/">https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/07/tory-candidate-sally-ann-hart-investigated-anti-semitism-day-vile-disabled-pay-comments-11406824/



All in all this woman sounds a right little charmer.  :roll:

[papasmurf]

Which bits?

The bits I quoted but you edited out.

[Churchill]

Exactly I agree

[patman post]

The National Archives are a good source of information on the "Origins of the NHS":



Despite the apparent consensus, opposition to the establishment of the National Health Service (NHS) existed. Many groups, including charities, churches and local authorities didn't want the government taking control of hospitals. There was a particularly bitter battle with the London County Council over the control of hospitals in the capital.



Even more serious was the opposition of doctors who disliked the idea of becoming employees of the state. Doctors were in an extremely powerful position, as without them the National Health Service (NHS) could not operate, and the government was forced to make a number of compromises. General Practitioner (GP) surgeries remained private businesses that could be bought and sold, and the NHS effectively gave these practices contracts to provide health care. Only the most senior doctors in hospitals (consultants) were allowed to continue private treatment. Similar compromises were worked out with dentists. Aneurin Bevan conceded these points in order to make the NHS work, but he was not happy with them.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/origins-nhs.htm">https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cab ... ns-nhs.htm">https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/origins-nhs.htm



Setting up the NHS involved compromise — something today's politics finds difficult...

[Churchill]

You think he would lose I don't as for the NHS the Tories voted against the introduction of it 21 times, that is a matter of public records.



More at link:



http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page/what_resistance_was_there_to_the_formation_of_the_nhs">http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page/wha ... of_the_nhs">http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page/what_resistance_was_there_to_the_formation_of_the_nhs



Churchill's Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading. Churchill sincerely believed that the NHS was a"first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy." To compare the NHS to Nazism in 1946 shows the extremity of views at the time.







https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-should-the-people-wait-any-longer-how-labour-built-the-nhs/">https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... t-the-nhs/">https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-should-the-people-wait-any-longer-how-labour-built-the-nhs/



The Tories voted against it 21 times and in one survey of doctors carried out in 1948, the BMA claimed that only 4,734 doctors out of the 45,148 polled, were in favour of an NHS. Churchill too was ferocious in his attack on Bevan. He told Bevan that unless he "changes his policy and methods and moves without the slightest delay, he will be as great a curse to his country in time of peace as he was a squalid nuisance in time of war." The Tory amendment stated that it:

...declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill which discourages voluntary effort and association; mutilates the structure of local government; dangerously increases ministerial power and patronage; appropriates trust funds and benefactions in contempt of the wishes of donors and subscribers; and undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession to the detriment of the nation.

It is not unusual for MP's to vote against any Bill amendments are made all the time before it goes to a final reading if passed eventually is included in the Queens speech



The idea for what later became the Welfare State NHS state pension was first put forward by a Doctor in the early or mid 30's Beverage a Liberal took it on board and put a plan together which was put on hold due to the outbreak of WW2.



All three parties had their proposals on the NHS Welfare State in their manifestos in 1945, Labour won the election it was voted in by all three party's

a cross party alliance .



This sums up the myth of Labour created the NHS, modern day Labour has privatised more of the NHS than the Tories  



https://www.libdemvoice.org/setting-the-record-straight-labour-and-the-nhs-15930.html">https://www.libdemvoice.org/setting-the ... 15930.html">https://www.libdemvoice.org/setting-the-record-straight-labour-and-the-nhs-15930.html

[Borchester]

You think he would lose I don't as for the NHS the Tories voted against the introduction of it 21 times, that is a matter of public records.



More at link:



http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page/what_resistance_was_there_to_the_formation_of_the_nhs">http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page/wha ... of_the_nhs">http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page/what_resistance_was_there_to_the_formation_of_the_nhs



Churchill's Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, ..







https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-should-the-people-wait-any-longer-how-labour-built-the-nhs/">https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... t-the-nhs/">https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-should-the-people-wait-any-longer-how-labour-built-the-nhs/

Which bits?



As far as I am aware everyone was in favour of the NHS. The real argument was how it should be funded. The Tories supported private insurance, the bulk of the Labour party wanted a tax on the employers and Bevan didn't think much of either idea and wanted it to be funded out of the income tax. A lot of the opposition to Anuerin's version of the NHS was that he wanted all the staff to be salaried, something the BMA shot down pretty sharpish.



Socially Churchill was fairly liberal although about the only comment he ever made on the subject of healthcare was that government was never better employed than when it was putting milk into babies. So I am a little surprised to hear that he voted to steal Tiny Tim's crutch although I have to admit it does sound fun.

[DeppityDawg]

So what?



https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-wreath-row">https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row">https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-wreath-row

Oddly (or not), the exact same link that was used on the other forum, which confirms exactly what I just said. The man who says he is there to remember the victims of terrorism, while at the same time being present when a wreath is laid to the memory of terrorists. Cool.

[papasmurf]

a cemetery in which were also the graves of several people who had links to the Munich massacre,

So what?



https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-wreath-row">https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row">https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-wreath-row

[DeppityDawg]

Because frankly the lies and propaganda about him take so little time to refute.  Frankly they are farcical. On the other hand the lies and propaganda by Boris Johnson when he was a "journalist," are a matter of public record.

Corbyn was pictured in a cemetery (and official records confirm), allegedly there to "pay respects to the victims of Israeli terrorism", a cemetery in which were also the graves of several people who had links to the Munich massacre, where a wreath was also laid, and at which he was present. As the Labour MP Luciana Berger said, "being 'present' is the same as being involved". So it seems in Jeremy Corbyn's head there is a fine line between what constitutes "terrorism", since he's perfectly prepared to "respect" the victims of Israeli terrorism, but less inclined to respect Israeli victims of it. Or, if he were really the peace loving old man he claims to be, refuse to be present at or have anything to do with the laying of a wreath or remembrance of people involved in terrorist acts. But we all know that isn't the kind of man he really is. Kind of figures really, given what the Labour party has become under his tenure



So there is no "propaganda and lies", and there is nothing to refute. A whole 30 page thread on the old forum dispelled this "lies and propaganda" myth for what it really is, and that is apologist bullshit. Or, as someone has already pointed out, he would have grounds to take it legal. The fact that he doesn't says more about the man than any Corbyn apologist ever could