Share this page!

Daniel Finn Profile picture
Twitter logo
18 Nov, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Behr once complained that Corbyn cared more about Colombian trade unions than about the European Union, and clearly believed this to be a great witticism, rather than a stark confession of his belief that white European lives are worth incomparably more than those of Colombians.
A few of the security precautions I noticed when visiting Colombia to meet its trade unionists: armour-plated SUVs, steel security doors & CCTV cameras on union offices, bullet-proof glass to guard against snipers (on the 27th floor!), bodyguards, etc.

aflcio.org/2019/5/16/murd…
Personally I found it refreshing that the opposition leader in one of the world's most powerful states cared more about trade unionists being murdered in Colombia than he did about the details of European Council meetings. Behr obviously didn't agree, and is anxious to bury him. Image
Behr appears to have deleted the original comment, but you can see people reacting to it here:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Daniel Finn

Daniel Finn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DanFinn95

Daniel Finn Profile picture
17 Nov
This message from Corbyn doesn't actually roll back on the correct things he said a couple of weeks ago—by their own lights, the BOD are right to dismiss it—but it *is* a retreat from that kind of plain speaking to more opaque statements that have to be read between the lines.
In a nutshell, "concerns aren't exaggerated" (but the scale of the problem certainly was); "I regret the pain this issue has caused" (which chiefly arose from such exaggerations); "I accept the recommendations" (which are mostly sensible—but not all the findings, which aren't).
This kind of Aesopian language is clearly a response to the corrupt internal politics of the Labour Party, but even if it's enough to have Corbyn's suspension lifted, it won't cut through the accumulated falsehoods. You need plain speaking for that.

counterfire.org/articles/opini…
Read 5 tweets
Daniel Finn Profile picture
16 Nov
As Dawn says, the grossly inappropriate tone of this article from IPSO's most implacable foe Lee Harpin stands out. But as one would expect from his track record, he doesn't supply the merest scrap of evidence to justify its main thrust. No breach of any rules, no "probe" either.
None of this violates any rule of the Labour Party (members are free to advocate things that aren't party policy). It's all based on a tendentious reading of the IHRA definition—which talks about "a state of Israel", not "the state"—that a lawyer could demolish in a few minutes.
While I'm prepared to believe Labour's current leadership is capable of all sorts of authoritarian excesses, this is clearly a boilerplate response that says nothing about the specific case. And no wonder she didn't respond: Harpin's record precedes him, after all.
Read 5 tweets
Daniel Finn Profile picture
15 Nov
Since the whole of British public life appears to have been swallowed up by the Harry's Place comments section circa 2005, it may be worth revisiting the peerless Encyclopedia of Decency, beginning with the Will-You-Condemn-A-Thon, still a familiar sight.

decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-y…
Next, Moral Courage, which has been very much in evidence in British politics and media over the past few years: so many brave men and women lining up to agree with their peers that we don't praise our own governments nearly enough.

decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/moral-…
Their Good Intentions and Ours, and the importance of knowing the difference.

decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/11/good-i…
Read 9 tweets
Daniel Finn Profile picture
12 Nov
Slow handclap for those liberals who clutched their pearls indignantly whenever anyone questioned the EHRC's credibility. Get ready for a lot more of this, and it won't just be directed against the socialist left—don't say we didn't warn you.

middleeasteye.net/news/ehrc-uk-r…
Can't think of any precedent for the EHRC adopting a "baffling methodology" to guide an official report that reaches conclusions at odds with the evidence but highly convenient for the British power elite. (Not in the last week, anyway.)

theguardian.com/media/2020/nov… Image
Seems like only yesterday a parliamentary committee reached this damning conclusion about the EHRC's track record (oh wait, it *was* only yesterday!).

committees.parliament.uk/publications/3… Image
Read 4 tweets
Daniel Finn Profile picture
10 Nov
In 1992, the US Institute of Medicine predicted future pandemics and warned that Big Pharma couldn't be relied upon to develop vaccines: "There may be potentially catastrophic consequences if the development process is left entirely to free enterprise."

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK23484…
It's not a question of morality, just market incentives: it's simply not profitable to preemptively develop vaccines for potential threats. The incentives only come into play when, for example, you have a global pandemic with over a million deaths and massive economic damage.
This problem will still be with us even if we have a working vaccine for COVID-19—unless you assume this virus crossing over into the human population was a one-off fluke that we need never worry about again. Otherwise we need permanent public research.

jacobinmag.com/2020/07/one-wo…
Read 5 tweets
Daniel Finn Profile picture
7 Nov
Trump's presidency never posed a real & present danger to the Bidens, Clintons & Obamas of this world; he was never going to "lock them up". But as he scurries off, remember Michael Reinoehl, the victim of a state execution as crude as Fred Hampton's.

nytimes.com/2020/10/13/us/…
The NYT interviewed 22 witnesses and gathered a clear picture of a premeditated gangland hit by the US Marshals, a federal force controlled by the Department of Justice. Image
The hit had the enthusiastic endorsement (and quite possibly foreknowledge) of Trump, who described it as "retribution" (presumably for his far-right supporters). Some of the talk of Trump's authoritarian propensities was overblown, but this was clear as day. Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @DanFinn95