Labour MP's harassment

"Talk of fathers turning in graves makes me think my father would be doing so if he could watch the Labour Party goings on at the moment."

What's the difference between think and wonder, bags?

Just for the record, this is what Jeremy Corbyn actually said. You can read it as a threat if you choose to, but I happen to think what he is saying is very clear and a far cry from the hysterical interpretations that have been attached to it:

“The vast majority of party members are opposed to war in Syria, the majority of Labour MPs are opposed to war in Syria. I hope every MP will recognise there is no hiding place on whipping; you have got to make up your own mind."

Or using words which are almost opposite in meaning, without making it clear what you actually intend to say. I always find ab 's posts perfectly clear and succinct even when I don't agree with her.

soon there is a difference between 'being clever with words' to advance your argument (or refute another's) and manipulating other people's words to alter and obfuscate their meaning.

Politicians are adept at the practice.

Most interesting soon

Nothing sinister in saying there is no hiding place from the consequences of bombing

Yes there is.
Yet he never punishes the abusers and warns MPs who defied him on Syria that “there will be “no hiding place”, which sounds like an incitement to purge to them – and to me.
Which is taken from the link.
JC has not cleared this up, so yes it is.

You have said no hiding place from the consequences of bombing. MPs wonder whether he means no hiding place from how they voted. Not the same thing at all.

I have finally come to realise, from this thread, Anniebach, that you are extremely clever with words.

Amongst other things, you change words, and in effect answer a different question, you answer a question by asking a different one, you sometimes mock to divert attention elsewhere, you take things out of context, you want definitions of words or phrases that other people understand, etc.

I didn't say you always use foul language thatbag, I do think it comes naturally to you which I think is a pity

is not exactly agreeing that words come easily...

I am not djen of course, but I certainly think you have answered that 'puzzlement' perfectly thatbags.

Thatbags, I have no wish to be rude but I think we have discussed you more than enough, and I have agreed words come easily to you

It's quite allright, btw, if you don't understand my thinking on this. I don't mind.

Hi dj! I didn,t say he would be. I wondered if he would and that wonder depended on another IF. that aside, let me see if I can answer your puzzlement and depuzzle it for you.

I have read quite a few articles by or about Labour Party members and supporters recently where, it has seemed to me, people are really worried about the future of the LP because of what they see as a certain simplisticness, and also a certain intolerance, about the current leadership. Some people seem to feel the LP is destroying itself. I'm not saying I agree with that view, just that I ve noticed it. This, regardless of how I personally feel about it, reminded me of the troubles within the LP during the time leading up to when members of Militant Tendency were kicked out.

The intolerance bit is what counts as harassment, I think, though I have not called it that.

Does that help?

Actually, it's a real compliment. Many people have said, since I was seventeen, that language comes easily to me, meaning I can express myself clearly (most of the time), I've always supposed. (I take it you did 'get' my anger about your suppositions about my dad? You appear to misunderstand so much I can't feel sure about that). It doesn't feel easy to me. I really think about what I say and write. There is purpose in my diction. You cannot know how flattered I am by your accolade, ab. [happy me emoji] And thank you again

Bags, I still do not understand what you meant by saying your father would be turning in his grave. Why would he be doing that?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-allies-accuse-mps-of-spreading-lies-about-labour-leaders-health-a6762041.html

Does this count as Labour MP's harassment?

You are probably the only person in the world who thinks foul language comes naturally to me, ab, and given that you know me so little, that's very amusing. Thank you for that.

I didn't say you always use foul language thatbag, I do think it comes naturally to you which I think is a pity

Based on your prejudices.

No, you misunderstood me, ab. Again. I did not say that I thought anger could not be expressed without vulgar language. I only said I chose, in this particular instance, to use what you call foul language, i.e. the expression piss off. This doesn't mean I always use foul language when expressing anger.

Assumptions and erroneous suppositions again!

Re your last comment, ab, I agree about "accepting one may be responsible for..." However, I think when the aim of one's attack (dropping targetted bombs in this instance) is to obliterate people who deliberately kill, torture and maim innocent people (as is that of Daesh), it makes all the difference.

I don't think Corbyn and others see that difference. I heard someone say recently that one can only be a pacifist in a society where someone else will deal with the fascists.

If you think so thatbag, I think anger can be expressed without vulgarity , you don't, your choice ,

You might not use words or expressions you regard as foul when angry, ab, but I think you might use terms you regard as non-foul in an equally angry way if I were to make a stupid supposition about someone you admired as much as I admire my dad. My purpose in using piss off was to make my anger perfectly clear and unambiguous. I believe I succeeded.

Language is a wonderful thing

Nothing sinister in saying there is no hiding place from the consequences of bombing . Surely you don't think it means - don't try to hide or deny you voted to bomb? impossible for any MP to hide how they voted ,

If one votes for bombing one has to accept one may be responsible for the deaths of innocent people

Just read the article in the link provided ( something I rarely do) and think as others, it's spot on! I'm afraid that there is a bit of denying going on in this thread, as in denying there is no problem with what Momentum, or similar groups are doing and saying and Corbyn himself with his sinister 'no hiding place' speech. Nobody should be so blind as to think there is nothing wrong EVER with their own political party. That kind of blindness smacks of the zealot.

The problem on this forum, or any for that matter, is that we all come from different areas, and words have slightly or even more than that, different meanings in different areas.

Personally I say that the sending of photos comes under the heading of abuse.

Obviously you don't regard it as foul language thatbag or you wouldn't use it, I do consider it foul language so wouldn't use it I do hear it on building sites so it doesn't shock me

Well, I reckon that puts me in the erudite few who do then . Personally, I don't regard piss off as foul. Vulgar, as in common, yes, but then I am of common stock.