I wondered whether I should post again but yep, I think I should after Robbies and Elburros comments aimed at me. I believe I made a very valid point, It wasn't tedious and Elburros post was very poor as my comment was not childiish and it was made in a grown up manner. By a comment 1966 made later which although I disagreed with meant he understood the point i was making. It was NOT a personal attack on him whatsoever.
That brings me to my next point. This side of the board is full of people with strong views on politics and I enjoy reading some of them and the debate that follows. At times I find some of it can be very high brow and way to deep for me. Now if you feel that is not the case, then please spare me the pompous pretentious patronising crap saying that it's not. I'm not interested. But by the same token, as much as there is this high brow stuff it's also possible to make a simple point by calling a spade a spade. And that is what my intention was to do here. A simple sharp and effective point. So on the general point of AVFTT, I find there is a conformity amongst so many posters. People don't see that others have a different mindset. Don't confuse that with a different viewpoint, it's totally different. People can be wired a bit different which means they come to a different conclusion or look at things from a different angle. I think I occasionally do that and on the football board I'd say Phil is the same. And that's why we both challenge the "norm".
Right, on to the specifics so Elburro can perhaps grasp the point I was making and that it was neither "childish" or in Robbies case "tedious" After all it's not a specific point I've made before. It was in reply to 66's post because the last part of his post was relevant to my point and his comment was made at the time I was listening to what was being said on the news.
Of course it centres around former Labour leader Corbyn and his suspension from the Labour Party. And the discussion that was happening because of it. As per expected it was the usual stuff of the pro's and cons the fors and againsts with Starmers decision and those on the extreme left, the militants, against it criticising it. All round of course the views of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, the supposed whitewash of the report and the usual denials. All pretty bog standard stuff which i daresay was to be expected. But then they brought in the view of some-one who I can assume was a high profile member in the Jewish community. And she made a point which resonated with me and which I linked in my opinion with what happens on AVFTT. The point was nothing to do with siding on the left the right or anything really like that. The point made was looking at it from a different angle to anybody else I heard speaking on the matter and is why I felt the need to also write my first para.
They questioned why all those Labour people who were coming out and speaking in support of Starmer nd backing his viewpoint on anti-semitism and the expulsion of Corbyn had been silent for the past six months or so. Where was their voice then when it was needed? And I thought damn right, good point well made. In other words, why not speak out from within your own party? In other words it's not a blue or red thing , challenge from within!
So that was my point in my first response to 66. He referenced "purging the Party of the bullies, the extremists and the racists." And in my view those bullies and extremists, militants, political agitators exist on here. Sure enough and rightly so the racists get challenged, I make that clear in my posts, but do the others get challenged from within by those with the same leanings. I certainly don't think so.
Again, my point is not about what people can post on here, people can post what they want. It's about what people don't say or who don't want to challenge. Which is the point which resonated with me listening to the debate yesterday.
I'm out.
