Heidi Allen - Theresa May will be gone in 6 months

[Denver]

Heidi Allen doesn’t see Theresa May staying as Prime Minister for longer than six months, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire has said.

In a frank interview with LBC, Ms Allen said she does not think Ms May will remain Prime Minister "indefinitely" and her time at Number 10 could even be a "period of transition" as the UK negotiates Brexit.

"If this was any other election in any other time in our history you could say yes the Prime Minister needs to stand down, but this is different of course because we are about to start negotiating Brexit so that puts an entirely different complexion on that," she told LBC's Iain Dale.

"We do need a Prime Minister at this moment."

In reference to Ms May's speech outside Downing Street, Ms Allen, who was returned to the House of Commons with a majority of 15,952, added: "It's almost like she's unaware of what's happened in the past 24 hours.

www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/heidi-allen-theresa-may-interview-13165429

[bots]

She certainly wont fight the next election, the tories don't accept failure

[Kizzy]

Mind you if she sidesteps does that mean essentially we could have an unelected Bojo for the next 5yrs?... :/

[JTM45]

Good riddance! Byyyyeeee!:wavey:

The way she conducted herself through this whole debacle (that SHE, against all the rules of common sense, initiated!) was absolutely shameful and an insult to the Great British public!

I actually think we should rename this section of the Forum as ''The Jeremy Corbyn Serious News & Debate Suite'' in honor of his truly fantastic performance against all the odds and nefarious slander. Other Party 'leaders' need to take notes on how it's done.:clap1:

[Kizzy]

Has there been any word on the blatant hypocrisy?...

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/09/weeks-smearing-corbyn-may-hopes-parliamentary-deal-backed-terrorists-video/

[Cherie]

Has there been any word on the blatant hypocrisy?...

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/09/weeks-smearing-corbyn-may-hopes-parliamentary-deal-backed-terrorists-video/


Yet another U turn, not a word will be said about this because they are English terrorists who never got any condemnation in the British press, they were only killing Irish Catholics so no need to report that

[Brillopad]

Has there been any word on the blatant hypocrisy?...

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/09/weeks-smearing-corbyn-may-hopes-parliamentary-deal-backed-terrorists-video/

May's alliance now is out of neccesity. Corbyn's alliance is through choice and has been going on for years, decades. If you can't see the difference?

[DemolitionRed]

Has there been any word on the blatant hypocrisy?...

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/09/weeks-smearing-corbyn-may-hopes-parliamentary-deal-backed-terrorists-video/

Thanks for that link Kizzy. A lot of media outlets have egg on their face.

[Brillopad]

Thanks for that link Kizzy. A lot of media outlets have egg on their face.

Not least the Canary.

[DemolitionRed]

Here’s an extract from May’s speech in front of Number 10: (pointed out by Simon Cohen is a British social commentator)

"Cracking down on the ideology of Islamist extremism and all those who support it and giving the police and the authorities the powers they need to keep our country safe.

The government I lead will put fairness and opportunity at the heart of everything we do so that we will fulfil the promise of Brexit together, and over the next five years build a country in which no one and no community is left behind, a country in which prosperity and opportunity are shared across this United Kingdom."

Notice anything?

She also uses this phrase: "build a country in which no one and no community is left behind"

This is EXACTLY the wording Corbyn has been using over the last two years

Gic-gazmZr8

Are the right wing political press going to point this out?

[Brillopad]

Here’s an extract from May’s speech in front of Number 10: (pointed out by Simon Cohen is a British social commentator)

"Cracking down on the ideology of Islamist extremism and all those who support it and giving the police and the authorities the powers they need to keep our country safe.

The government I lead will put fairness and opportunity at the heart of everything we do so that we will fulfil the promise of Brexit together, and over the next five years build a country in which no one and no community is left behind, a country in which prosperity and opportunity are shared across this United Kingdom."

Notice anything?

She also uses this phrase: "build a country in which no one and no community is left behind"

This is EXACTLY the wording Corbyn has been using over the last two years

Gic-gazmZr8

Are the right wing political press going to point this out?

I would say ballony if you tried to tell me Corbyn has never uttered a phrase that May has. So if Corbyn has said something no-one else can. :shrug:

[Kazanne]

Not least the Canary.

What's the Canary :shrug:

[Oliver_W]

I see her as a bit of a necessary evil at the moment - unless some random backbencher or minor Cabinet member comes from the woodwork, there's just no suitable alternative right now.

Mind you if she sidesteps does that mean essentially we could have an unelected Bojo for the next 5yrs?... :/

All PMs are unelected. They represent the largest party, the UK doesn't vote for the Prime Minister :)

[joeysteele]

Mind you if she sidesteps does that mean essentially we could have an unelected Bojo for the next 5yrs?... :/

I actually think the Cons may not think of looking to Buffoon Boris really.

He bottled the challenge last year and in a really humiliating way, stabbed by Gove,yet Boris threw the towel in.

He looks on paper as much a liability as Mrs May has proved to be.
The first overall majority won by the Cons since 1992,nearly a quarter of a century.
Blown out and lost by her really shocking judgement and leadership, just 2 years later.

Having the Cons going from being a majority govt to have to near plead for full regular support from the DUP,of all Parties.

Johnson may be a charismatic stronger cabinet Minister but could prove another liability like Mrs May, in the real top job.

[Vicky.]

Of course the Tories will oust her. The election has made her incompetence even clearer and the Conservative party are ruthless. I feel rather sorry for her in a way as she was kind of shoehorned into a role that she was not ready for and might not have even really wanted and now shes floundering around getting worse and worse. All whilst repeating 'strong and stable' though of course.

However, I doubt anyone wants to step up and take over the Brexit thing. Even though apparently its David Davis actually doing the Brexit negotiations as Brexit secretary. But May is the face of it. And May will be blamed when it all goes tits up. THEN she will be replaced, once its all done with so she can be forever blamed for it.

Though everyone seems to forget it was Cameron who started this all. He really is getting away with it :laugh:

[Anaesthesia]

I actually think the Cons may not think of looking to Buffoon Boris really.

He bottled the challenge last year and in a really humiliating way, stabbed by Gove,yet Boris threw the towel in.

He looks on paper as much a liability as Mrs May has proved to be.
The first overall majority won by the Cons since 1992,nearly a quarter of a century.
Blown out and lost by her really shocking judgement and leadership, just 2 years later.

Having the Cons going from being a majority govt to have to near plead for full regular support from the DUP,of all Parties.

Johnson may be a charismatic stronger cabinet Minister but could prove another liability like Mrs May, in the real top job.

Tell you what, I actually thought Boris might be a good asset for the Tories. After having seen him run like **** from reality, when he had a chance to lead, I see him now as a little coward who is more about image than anything else.

[smudgie]

May's alliance now is out of neccesity. Corbyn's alliance is through choice and has been going on for years, decades. If you can't see the difference?

Not forgetting Corbyn's alliance was whilst his friends were bombing innocent men, women and children in both Northern Ireland and mainland Britain.
The DUP are legitimate members of the U.K. Parliament, as of course are Sinn Fein if they ever decide to take up their seats in parliament.

[Kazanne]

Of course the Tories will oust her. The election has made her incompetence even clearer and the Conservative party are ruthless. I feel rather sorry for her in a way as she was kind of shoehorned into a role that she was not ready for and might not have even really wanted and now shes floundering around getting worse and worse. All whilst repeating 'strong and stable' though of course.

However, I doubt anyone wants to step up and take over the Brexit thing. Even though apparently its David Davis actually doing the Brexit negotiations as Brexit secretary. But May is the face of it. And May will be blamed when it all goes tits up. THEN she will be replaced, once its all done with so she can be forever blamed for it.

Though everyone seems to forget it was Cameron who started this all. He really is getting away with it :laugh:

Didn't Cameron have to call a referendam though as Farage had wanted a vote on it? Cameron wanted to remain so when the result was to leave he would have been a hypocrite to stay surely.:shrug:

[smudgie]

Didn't Cameron have to call a referendam though as Farage had wanted a vote on it? Cameron wanted to remain so when the result was to leave he would have been a hypocrite to stay surely.:shrug:

Yep, he stuck to his promise and gave us the referendum, I doubt he thought that it would be a vote to leave, he had no option but to leave as it would have gone against the grain too much for him.
Plus he was already intending not to do the full term, so early retirement for him.:joker:
I don't think Theresa May will be able to stay much longer, she called the election and it backfired on her, heaven only knows who will come forward for the job.
Please don't let it be BOJO.:joker:

[Vicky.]

Didn't Cameron have to call a referendam though as Farage had wanted a vote on it? Cameron wanted to remain so when the result was to leave he would have been a hypocrite to stay surely.:shrug:

Cameron only gave a referendum as he was scared UKIP would nick Tory votes. I bet he regrets it with how it turned out. Yet again breathtaking arrogance that the vote would go his way :S I guess it would be quite hypocritical to stay (just as hypocritical as May taking the job tbh when she wanted to stay too) but at the same time, he should have had a plan for if we voted leave. That was the problem. They all thought they would get a stay vote so it would shut everyone up as the vote had been done, but nothing would actually change. If you give a vote to the people, you need to be prepared for all possible outcomes surely...especially for something as big as that!


On a separate note
I hear on the news today that 2 of Theresa Mays cabinet are getting the blame for the poor election campaign and have resigned.

[Jack_]

She's a total laughing stock. To lose your parliamentary majority in an election you promised wouldn't be called against an opposition you expected and hoped to sink into oblivion is so embarrassing it is beyond all comprehension. And it couldn't have happened to a nastier woman.

As some commentators were remarking on election night, this is twice now that the Self Servatives have put their own party's vanity before the interests of the country. Cameron gambled on the EU referendum and lost. May gambled on an early election and lost. Are they a political party or a casino? The fact that they're now in effect forming a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathising bigots is a display of hysterical irony that I'm revelling in. This reprehensible party has once again been exposed for the power thirsty cretins they are, with its leader squatting in number 10 and only offering condolences to the ministers and MPs who lost their seats when pressed to in an interview. This despicable, arrogant **** wasted £100m of public money in an election that didn't need to be called, and one she couldn't lose, and now her attempt at securing a 'strong and stable' government has left this country in limbo and chaos as we embark upon the most important negotiations in modern British political history. And she has the gall to stand outside number ten and use the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to ingratiate herself with the electorate. She and her disgusting party make me physically ****ing repulsed.

[Vicky.]

The election was all about her, I did notice that. As if she was a one man band or something. I don't think I heard the party mentioned at all. Especially when she was on about Brexit. She kept putting the 'funny' image of Corbyn at negotiations in peoples heads. But never seemed to mention that its actually Davis who will be doing negotiations and such as Brexit secretary. Nor that it would be (IMO the very very capable|) Keir Starmer if Labour were 'in'

I am sure most of the party aren't happy with her. I do expect to see more resignations in the coming days tbh.

[jet]

Has there been any word on the blatant hypocrisy?...

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/09/weeks-smearing-corbyn-may-hopes-parliamentary-deal-backed-terrorists-video/

Only yours.

Corbyn is well known in N Ireland as an IRA sympathiser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Do you condemn his links to terrorism? His IRA buddies with links to Sinn Fein including their leader McGuiness killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, including women and children.
Much as I dislike the DUP, they are nothing compared to Sinn Fein and their buddies the murderous IRA.

Educate yourself before you pontificate about a country you haven't lived in all your life like I have. Perhaps if you had friends killed by the IRA you wouldn't think Corbyn such a great guy. That great guy spoke at rallies every year commemorating the loss of IRA killers. He makes me sick.

[Kazanne]

Yep, he stuck to his promise and gave us the referendum, I doubt he thought that it would be a vote to leave, he had no option but to leave as it would have gone against the grain too much for him.
Plus he was already intending not to do the full term, so early retirement for him.:joker:
I don't think Theresa May will be able to stay much longer, she called the election and it backfired on her, heaven only knows who will come forward for the job.
Please don't let it be BOJO.:joker:

What about David Davies?

[Vicky.]

Much as I dislike the DUP, they are nothing compared to Sinn Fein and their buddies the murderous IRA.


OK I am still reading up about Irish Politics. But am watching an argument between some Irish friends about Sin Fein and the DUP and I am seeing..

As a female catholic in NI I must say it's an unbelievable situation, most people in Northern Ireland accept the DUP have terrorist links. Although I do agree that this spotlight might do something to help drag those dinosaurs into the reality of modern life. It does seem as though people in England didn't care about NI politics until now, I'm actually glad they will be scrutinised.

What is craziest is people saying that the DUP are not as bad as Sinn Fein because what the IRA were doing was worse.

I dare you to go to a Catholic area of NI and say that.

Read up on the **** the loyalist groups did during the Troubles before you start mouthing off about who was worse.

There are literally photos of Peter Robinson, who until very recently was the leader of the DUP, wearing paramilitary gear and leading the Ulster Resistance.

How the hell are the DUP, then, not linked to terrorism? Do you think the Ulster Resistance were just a friendly bunch of fellas who happened to enjoy running around in army gear for the lols?

And by getting into bed with them, I'm afraid TM does indeed condone terrorism.

Oh, but when loyalists do it, it's not terrorism, is it? It's 'defending your country' or 'refusing to surrender' something.


Seems to...depend on which side of the coin you are on?

[smudgie]

Only yours.

Corbyn is well known in N Ireland as an IRA sympathiser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Do you condemn his links to terrorism? His IRA buddies with links to Sinn Fein including their leader McGuiness killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, including women and children.
Much as I dislike the DUP, they are nothing compared to Sinn Fein and their buddies the murderous IRA.

Educate yourself before you pontificate about a country you haven't lived in all your life like I have. Perhaps if you had friends killed by the IRA you wouldn't think Corbyn such a great guy. That great guy spoke at rallies every year commemorating the loss of IRA killers. He makes me sick.

Good to see it from somebody who lives there and actually witnessed it Jet.
People only see what they want to and skip over the other stuff, or pass it off as fake news or whatever the buzzword of the day is.

[DemolitionRed]

Only yours.

Corbyn is well known in N Ireland as an IRA sympathiser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Do you condemn his links to terrorism? His IRA buddies with links to Sinn Fein including their leader McGuiness killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, including women and children.
Much as I dislike the DUP, they are nothing compared to the murderous IRA.

Educate yourself before you pontificate about a country you haven't lived in all your life like I have. Perhaps if you had friends killed by the IRA you wouldn't think Corbyn such a great guy. That great guy spoke at rallies every year commemorating the loss of IRA killers. He makes me sick.

How about you educating yourself? The topic about Corbyn and his supposed or not relationship with Sinn Fein has been talked about and argued about on here to tedious levels. Enough government links have been added and supplied to this site. (you need to go and find them yourself now if you really do want to be educated about this) to prove your accusations are 100% incorrect.

I'll say it one more time but the rest is up to you to research; if it wasn't for people like Corbyn, Mo Mowlam and others, (under government instruction) having peace negotiations with Sinn Fein; Good Friday wouldn't of happened and the IRA would probably still be bombing the UK

[bots]

What about David Davies?

David Davis is a possibility. I would have liked Amber to get the job, but her seat majority is to small, it would be too risky.

Whoever it is, i think it needs to be someone who voted to leave the EU. It also needs to be someone more willing to listen to consensus.

[smudgie]

How about you educating yourself? The topic about Corbyn and his supposed or not relationship with Sinn Fein has been talked about and argued about on here to tedious levels. Enough government links have been added and supplied to this site. (you need to go and find them yourself now if you really do want to be educated about this) to prove your accusations are 100% incorrect.

I'll say it one more time but the rest is up to you to research; if it wasn't for people like Corbyn, Mo Mowlam and others, (under government instruction) having peace negotiations with Sinn Fein; Good Friday wouldn't of happened and the IRA would probably still be bombing the UK

Oh dear, so you are still saying that what you believe is true, and anyone else who dares to acknowledge the truth of the matter is uneducated.
You couldn't make it up.
Corbyn not only had NOTHING to do with the peace talks but he actually was against the original ones.
To mention Corbyn and Mo Molam in the same sentence is ludicrous.

[Vicky.]

Erm. is it right that this whole thing could possibly breach the Good Friday Agreement? :/

How can the Government be politically neutral in Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement when it needs the DUP?

[DemolitionRed]

Erm. is it right that this whole thing could possibly breach the Good Friday Agreement? :/ A hard Brexit and removing Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights would almost certainly destroy the Good Friday Agreement.

[Alf]

I see her as a bit of a necessary evil at the moment - unless some random backbencher or minor Cabinet member comes from the woodwork, there's just no suitable alternative right now.


All PMs are unelected. They represent the largest party, the UK doesn't vote for the Prime Minister :)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/18/article-2295489-18A9EC7E000005DC-859_634x500.jpg

[DemolitionRed]

She's a total laughing stock. To lose your parliamentary majority in an election you promised wouldn't be called against an opposition you expected and hoped to sink into oblivion is so embarrassing it is beyond all comprehension. And it couldn't have happened to a nastier woman.

As some commentators were remarking on election night, this is twice now that the Self Servatives have put their own party's vanity before the interests of the country. Cameron gambled on the EU referendum and lost. May gambled on an early election and lost. Are they a political party or a casino? The fact that they're now in effect forming a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathising bigots is a display of hysterical irony that I'm revelling in. This reprehensible party has once again been exposed for the power thirsty cretins they are, with its leader squatting in number 10 and only offering condolences to the ministers and MPs who lost their seats when pressed to in an interview. This despicable, arrogant **** wasted £100m of public money in an election that didn't need to be called, and one she couldn't lose, and now her attempt at securing a 'strong and stable' government has left this country in limbo and chaos as we embark upon the most important negotiations in modern British political history. And she has the gall to stand outside number ten and use the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to ingratiate herself with the electorate. She and her disgusting party make me physically ****ing repulsed.

Another passionately angry blog that needs repeating here, just in case someone missed it.

Well said Jack

[jet]

OK I am still reading up about Irish Politics. But am watching an argument between some Irish friends about Sin Fein and the DUP and I am seeing..





Seems to...depend on which side of the coin you are on?

For a lot of people it does depend on which side of the coin you are on...and therefore a lot of lies/misconceptions are put out there to influence those who haven't lived through it all.
I was born a N.Irish Catholic and I support neither party - Sinn Fein nor DUP. I don't practice my religion. I am on nobody's 'side'. I tell the truth.

What is craziest is people saying that the DUP are not as bad as Sinn Fein because what the IRA were doing was worse.

I dare you to go to a Catholic area of NI and say that.

Read up on the **** the loyalist groups did during the Troubles before you start mouthing off about who was worse.


The DUP to my knowledge have had no murderers or terrorists among them. Not that I've ever heard of anyway. The loyalist paramilitaries support the party for obvious reasons - they want to stay part of the UK and retain their identity and culture as such.
Sinn Fein's own late leader, Martin McGuiness, was Chief of Staff of the IRA at the time 18 British soldiers were killed in Warrenpoint, NI and Mountbatten was assassinated, among many other atrocities. Many Sinn Fein members were IRA related - I'm not sure if this is still the case today.

The Troubles started because the Catholic community felt they didn't have equal rights to Protestants. This was true in some cases when it came to housing and jobs but that was more a social problem than a political one because Catholics had much larger families. Many Catholics didn't want to be ruled over by the British and wanted to identify with the Irish Republic. It's all much more complicated than that but that's the gist of it.

Who was worse, the IRA or the Loyalist Paramilitaries?

To me, the IRA, hands down.

They used bombs to target and kill thousands of innocent people in restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, fun run days out - it didn't matter that innocent woman and children were killed and maimed. Protestant OR Catholic.
Including dear Catholic friends of mine.

The Loyalist Para's? They did a few bombings but mostly targeted Catholics in isolation, many of them just because they happened to be Catholic. Shooting and vicious beatings were their preferred methods.

If it wasn't for the IRA, there would have been no Paramilitaries.

I lived in a Catholic area and have never had a problem from anyone of either religion. I had and still have Protestant friends. If you want trouble, it will find you anywhere.

[smudgie]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/18/article-2295489-18A9EC7E000005DC-859_634x500.jpg

Hmmmm, I could see him as a leader.
Mind you, you would need at least three hours for PM questions.:laugh:

[Kazanne]

Another passionately angry blog that needs repeating here, just in case someone missed it.

Well said Jack

I don't read angry blogs as its just that person spouting their hate,give me a sensible truthful post that will do ,like Jets message 34:wavey:

[Vicky.]

A hell of a lot of Irish people seem angry that people in the rest of the UK don't know anything/much about either party...

I am staying out of it all as as I said, I don't know enough about Irish Politics (seems really complicated...and apparently peace is shaky to start with without Westminster backing one side over another?) but its really fascinating to watch. People on both sides seem so passionate and both sides seem to think the others were horrendous. Its very very different to the politics I know. I am trying to learn by watching others..but my heads getting a bit messed up :S

I don't remember anything about the IRA..either I am too young or I was totally shielded from it, or it didn't affect my area (didn't really watch news when younger either..however apparently 'loyalist' bombing went completely ignored in the UK media which has angered another of my friends...) but my mother claims I was nearly caught up in one of their bombings. In the metrocentre. But they phoned a warning in or something/. All seems a bit weird, if your plan is to just kill people, why warn?!

Sorry if I come across as insensitive on the subject. But I genuinely do want to learn :S

[Jack_]

I don't read angry blogs as its just that person spouting their hate,give me a sensible truthful post that will do ,like Jets message 34:wavey:

You mean like the Tories hate for the disabled, foxes, the poor...dare I go on?

Nothing I said is false. Please get me back to be when you can prove it is, and in the meantime quit making indirect jibes. Thanks

[smudgie]

A hell of a lot of Irish people seem angry that people in the rest of the UK don't know anything/much about either party...

I am staying out of it all as as I said, I don't know enough about Irish Politics (seems really complicated...and apparently peace is shaky to start with without Westminster backing one side over another?) but its really fascinating to watch. People on both sides seem so passionate and both sides seem to think the others were horrendous. Its very very different to the politics I know. I am trying to learn by watching others..but my heads getting a bit messed up :S

I don't remember anything about the IRA..either I am too young or I was totally shielded from it, or it didn't affect my area (didn't really watch news when younger either..however apparently 'loyalist' bombing went completely ignored in the UK media which has angered another of my friends...) but my mother claims I was nearly caught up in one of their bombings. In the metrocentre. But they phoned a warning in or something/. All seems a bit weird, if your plan is to just kill people, why warn?!

Sorry if I come across as insensitive on the subject. But I genuinely do want to learn :S

There is a list on Wikipedia giving details of all the bombings.
Not a pleasant read.:bawling:

[joeysteele]

A hard Brexit and removing Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights would almost certainly destroy the Good Friday Agreement.

It could Vicky.

Re living the past Irish problems helps no one.
The atrocities were awful and unacceptable but unionists whipped up hatred just as much as nationalists did.

We should have moved on by now,with the power sharing peace process and the IRA at long last halting their grossly wrong bombing campaign.

However,Sinn Féin and the Unionists have worked together for heading on near 2 decades now and all should be grateful for that.
Rightly or wrongly, people felt support for the IRA position,minus the killings of course.
While others supported the Unionists cause too, even to the orange order,celebrating yearly the defeat of Catholic causes over 300,yes 300 years earlier, by orange marches parading down Catholic resident areas taunting and baiting.
They still do when they can and have grievances with the parades commission as to no go Catholic areas for such marches.

So if the DUP start to expect favours from the Cons for keeping them in govt or are suspected of getting any special concessions in any way, this could threaten the not taking sides of UK govts as to N Ireland and cause major issues with the hard-earned peace process of over 15 years ago.
It could.

That is why having the DUP officially on board in any capacity as to being tied to the UK govt,is a real risk to stability.
Sinn Féinn have already personal issues with the DUP leader at Stormont anyway.
So the power sharing is having difficulty at present with no agreement for the way forward.

As for Martin Mcguinness,he was deputy first Minister, he worked with the peace process and even worked with Ian Paisley.
His past is chequered of course but his contribution to the peace process,like or detest him,is fact.
Acknowledged by Labour,Conservative govts alike.

[jet]

How about you educating yourself? The topic about Corbyn and his supposed or not relationship with Sinn Fein has been talked about and argued about on here to tedious levels. Enough government links have been added and supplied to this site. (you need to go and find them yourself now if you really do want to be educated about this) to prove your accusations are 100% incorrect.

I'll say it one more time but the rest is up to you to research; if it wasn't for people like Corbyn, Mo Mowlam and others, (under government instruction) having peace negotiations with Sinn Fein; Good Friday wouldn't of happened and the IRA would probably still be bombing the UK

I haven't been on this site for some time, excuse me for being so neglectful.
What accusations are incorrect, exactly?
We in N.Ireland know Corbyn well from long long ago. The article I linked to brings back many memories of Corbyn in the 70's and his speeches at IRA rallies mourning the loss of murderers, witnessed by people who actually live here. Did you even read it?

Corbyn had peace talks with Sinn Fein in the 80's? I bet they did. I wonder what kind of talks they were having. He opposed the Anglo Irish Agreement. :laugh:

John Hume, David Trimble, Martin McGuiness brought about the Good Friday Agreement. Hume and Trimble were awarded the Nobel Peace prize for their efforts, it was nothing to do with Corbyn.

Bury your head in the sand if you must.

[Vicky.]

There is a list on Wikipedia giving details of all the bombings.
Not a pleasant read.:bawling:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bombs-hunt-paralyses-city-centre-1537349.html

The devices are thought to be similar to those planted by the IRA in the Gateshead shopping centre in May.

All I can find about Metro, but it seems yes it did happen. I would have only been 5 or something though

[jet]

I don't read angry blogs as its just that person spouting their hate,give me a sensible truthful post that will do ,like Jets message 34:wavey:

Thank you Kazanne. It's hard to some of the misconceptions about what went on in my own country and keep silent. Maybe I should just stop reading. :hee:

[smudgie]

Thank you Kazanne. It's hard to some of the misconceptions about what went on in my own country and keep silent. Maybe I should just stop reading. :hee:

Please don't.
It's refreshing to hear about it from someone who was actually living there.
I remember it well,the bombings in England.
I can't imagine the horrors that went on in N.I.

[Kazanne]

Thank you Kazanne. It's hard to some of the misconceptions about what went on in my own country and keep silent. Maybe I should just stop reading. :hee:

Don't stop posting Jet,I want to learn about what went on there , you keep spilling that truth.

[jet]

It could Vicky.


While others supported the Unionists cause too, even to the orange order,celebrating yearly the defeat of Catholic causes over 300,yes 300 years earlier, by orange marches parading down Catholic resident areas taunting and baiting.
They still do when they can and have grievances with the parades commission as to no go Catholic areas for such marches.


This is a bit one sided Joey. Catholics also have marches to commemorate the Easter Rising (all those years ago!), the IRA Hunger Strikers, Republican Culture etc.
The Protestant Orange parade is the biggest, and before the Troubles many a Catholic brought their kids along for a good day out at the festivities. I went as a kid, and I brought my kids along with our Protestant friends. It wasn't until the Troubles that it all changed.
Actually, the reason the Orangemen parade near Catholic areas is because that was their traditional route when those areas were actually Protestant (and it is just a few areas). Their argument is that it is the Queens Highway and we have always walked this way, why should we have to re - route. Silly really. The Catholics feel the Protestants are taunting them by continuing to march nearby. Also silly really.
As far as I know it's been mainly sorted out by some re - routing and if not Orange bands ceasing playing as they pass a Catholic area.

[joeysteele]

She's a total laughing stock. To lose your parliamentary majority in an election you promised wouldn't be called against an opposition you expected and hoped to sink into oblivion is so embarrassing it is beyond all comprehension. And it couldn't have happened to a nastier woman.

As some commentators were remarking on election night, this is twice now that the Self Servatives have put their own party's vanity before the interests of the country. Cameron gambled on the EU referendum and lost. May gambled on an early election and lost. Are they a political party or a casino? The fact that they're now in effect forming a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathising bigots is a display of hysterical irony that I'm revelling in. This reprehensible party has once again been exposed for the power thirsty cretins they are, with its leader squatting in number 10 and only offering condolences to the ministers and MPs who lost their seats when pressed to in an interview. This despicable, arrogant **** wasted £100m of public money in an election that didn't need to be called, and one she couldn't lose, and now her attempt at securing a 'strong and stable' government has left this country in limbo and chaos as we embark upon the most important negotiations in modern British political history. And she has the gall to stand outside number ten and use the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to ingratiate herself with the electorate. She and her disgusting party make me physically ****ing repulsed.

Awesome post.

Uncomfortable reading likely for some but all true Jack_
I really do stand impressed with your knowledge and summary of events and your factual take on things too.

[jet]

Awesome post.

Uncomfortable reading likely for some but all true Jack_
I really do stand impressed with your knowledge and summary of events and your factual take on things too.

Why then Joey did you say elsewhere that you would like Sinn Fein to take their seats at Westminster? There is no doubt at all that they are terrorist sympathisers. As you no doubt know their late leader was the IRA Chief of Staff who ordered murders. He and Gerry Adams attended IRA funerals in plain sight. The DUP, as much as I loathe some of their policies, couldn't touch Sinn Fein for the blood on their hands.

[user104658]

Why then Joey did you say elsewhere that you would like Sinn Fein to take their seats at Westminster? There is no doubt at all that they are terrorist sympathisers. As you no doubt know their late leader was the IRA Chief of Staff who ordered murders. He and Gerry Adams attended IRA funerals in plain sight. The DUP, as much as I loathe some of their policies, couldn't touch Sinn Fein for the blood on their hands.
No one is saying that the DUP shouldn't take their seats as normal, though? There's a pretty big difference between that, and them getting a place at the top table when deciding on the biggest issues facing the country. Which is what they will have, formal coalition or not - in fact, they will have even more negotiating power outside of a coalition when they can make requests / demands on an issue-by-issue basis.

Obviously it would be just as much of a problem if Sinn Fein was in that position. But you're arguing a strawman point there. "Sun Fein is worse!!" is really irrelevant to whether or not the DUP being at the center of Westminster is a good idea.

On the absolute most basic of levels, it completely undermines (effectively nullifies??) the Good Friday agreement and I can't understand how anyone could fail to be worried by that alone.

[Brillopad]

She's a total laughing stock. To lose your parliamentary majority in an election you promised wouldn't be called against an opposition you expected and hoped to sink into oblivion is so embarrassing it is beyond all comprehension. And it couldn't have happened to a nastier woman.

As some commentators were remarking on election night, this is twice now that the Self Servatives have put their own party's vanity before the interests of the country. Cameron gambled on the EU referendum and lost. May gambled on an early election and lost. Are they a political party or a casino? The fact that they're now in effect forming a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathising bigots is a display of hysterical irony that I'm revelling in. This reprehensible party has once again been exposed for the power thirsty cretins they are, with its leader squatting in number 10 and only offering condolences to the ministers and MPs who lost their seats when pressed to in an interview. This despicable, arrogant **** wasted £100m of public money in an election that didn't need to be called, and one she couldn't lose, and now her attempt at securing a 'strong and stable' government has left this country in limbo and chaos as we embark upon the most important negotiations in modern British political history. And she has the gall to stand outside number ten and use the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to ingratiate herself with the electorate. She and her disgusting party make me physically ****ing repulsed.

If you are going to support the likes of Corbyn who has had known links with terrorist groups for decades don't try and take the moral high ground and cry about May's coalition with 'terrorist sympathising bigots'.

And Corbyn is every bit the power thirsty cretin you accuse May of being. That kind of hypocrisy makes me physically damn repulsed.

[jet]

No one is saying that the DUP shouldn't take their seats as normal, though? There's a pretty big difference between that, and them getting a place at the top table when deciding on the biggest issues facing the country. Which is what they will have, formal coalition or not - in fact, they will have even more negotiating power outside of a coalition when they can make requests / demands on an issue-by-issue basis.

Obviously it would be just as much of a problem if Sinn Fein was in that position. But you're arguing a strawman point there. "Sun Fein is worse!!" is really irrelevant to whether or not the DUP being at the center of Westminster is a good idea.

On the absolute most basic of levels, it completely undermines (effectively nullifies??) the Good Friday agreement and I can't understand how anyone could fail to be worried by that alone.

I was simply asking Joey why he said he would actually LIKE Sinn Fein to take their seats when they are well known terrorist sympathisers. Should any terrorist sympathisers have seats at Westminster?

I am extremely worried about the fate of the Good Friday Agreement, believe me nobody wants a return of the hell we lived in for so many years.

[joeysteele]

Why then Joey did you say elsewhere that you would like Sinn Fein to take their seats at Westminster? There is no doubt at all that they are terrorist sympathisers. As you no doubt know their late leader was the IRA Chief of Staff who ordered murders. He and Gerry Adams attended IRA funerals in plain sight. The DUP, as much as I loathe some of their policies, couldn't touch Sinn Fein for the blood on their hands.



Because I believe in democracy, pure and simple.
I believe anyone elected democratically in a UK election should take their seats in Westminster.
Sinn Féinn are not a banned party they are a legitimate party and strongly involved and vital in the power sharing assembly in N Ireland.

I believe we have to move on as much as is possible from the troubles of the past.
You again mention Mcguinness,rightly saying the late leader, exactly he is dead,what is the point of his being mentioned.

I have been in N Ireland,my Grandparents were Irish.from Southern Ireland they lived in Mullingar.
I have also been in N Ireland many times as a child and teen.

My Grandparents had family and friends in N Ireland, I see little point in those orange marches myself.
For me moving on is far more important.

Wrongs were done on all sides,killings and bombings are wrong no matter who does it.
However for me anything inflammatory is not helpful,and that's how I see the orange marches.

By all means try to make it a day as an event without the taunting and baiting but some orange marches do try to intimidate.
That also is likely to happen from the other side too but honestly it's time to move on from the religious overtones to marches and events.

There will always be suspicion and resentment even on both sides to the other's side.
Which is why I am against this even very casual deal by the Cons with the DUP.
If the DUP support Con policy,fair enough but to engage in securing support always should be avoided in my view.
It is only going to alienate possibly Sinn Féinn who even moreso after winning 7 seats in this election, are equally vital to N Ireland peace process continuing.

[DemolitionRed]

I haven't been on this site for some time, excuse me for being so neglectful.
What accusations are incorrect, exactly?
We in N.Ireland know Corbyn well from long long ago. The article I linked to brings back many memories of Corbyn in the 70's and his speeches at IRA rallies mourning the loss of murderers, witnessed by people who actually live here. Did you even read it?

Corbyn had peace talks with Sinn Fein in the 80's? I bet they did. I wonder what kind of talks they were having. He opposed the Anglo Irish Agreement. :laugh:

John Hume, David Trimble, Martin McGuiness brought about the Good Friday Agreement. Hume and Trimble were awarded the Nobel Peace prize for their efforts, it was nothing to do with Corbyn.

Bury your head in the sand if you must.

I never bury my head in the sand, just examine and scrutinize some very reliable sources. Hume and Trimble took the glory but they couldn't of done it without men like Corbyn. I can't stress this enough, Corbyn met with the 'Ras political representatives when there was a war on to try and open the way towards a peaceful political solution to the violence. Arlene foster met Jackie McDonald, a UDA terrorist leader, last week, now long after the end of the shooting war when the paramilitaries exist as organised crime syndicates who rule their own communities with an iron fist and don't do much else.

Also, while they don't quite have the same relationship with the Loyalist terror organisations that Sinn Fein have with the PIRA, they do funnel funds to their leadership from the public purse through the Social Investment Fund (which is basically a vehicle for bribing the leaders of the paramilitary organisations not to shoot people from the other side) and were publicly endorsed by the UDA, UFF and UVF leadership the week before this election.

They were also responsible for the flag protests that crippled Belfast city centre during 2013 and have been the vehicle of knuckle dragging reaction since they sucked up all the hard line unionist micro-parties and brought over the hard liners from the UUP. They are the embodiment of the reasons why Northern Ireland have not been able to move on.

[jet]

Because I believe in democracy, pure and simple.
I believe anyone elected democratically in a UK election should take their seats in Westminster.
Sinn Féinn are not a banned party they are a legitimate party and strongly involved and vital in the power sharing assembly in N Ireland.

I believe we have to move on as much as is possible from the troubles of the past.
You again mention Mcguinness,rightly saying the late leader, exactly he is dead,what is the point of his being mentioned.

I have been in N Ireland,my Grandparents were Irish.from Southern Ireland they lived in Mullingar.
I have also been in N Ireland many times as a child and teen.

My Grandparents had family and friends in N Ireland, I see little point in those orange marches myself.
For me moving on is far more important.

Wrongs were done on all sides,killings and bombings are wrong no matter who does it.
However for me anything inflammatory is not helpful,and that's how I see the orange marches.

By all means try to make it a day as an event without the taunting and baiting but some orange marches do try to intimidate.
That also is likely to happen from the other side too but honestly it's time to move on from the religious overtones to marches and events.

There will always be suspicion and resentment even on both sides to the other's side.
Which is why I am against this even very casual deal by the Cons with the DUP.
If the DUP support Con policy,fair enough but to engage in securing support always should be avoided in my view.
It is only going to alienate possibly Sinn Féinn who even moreso after winning 7 seats in this election, are equally vital to N Ireland peace process continuing.

I have moved on, but it's hard to read misconceptions about your country and say nothing. Living here throughout the whole of the Troubles and visiting here are vastly different things. What I can never forget are my friends killed by the IRA and I never will. Reading anything to do with the IRA or anyone sympathising with them makes my blood boil. They killed thousands of people to get hold of six little counties, choosing to murder instead of using the ballot box which they were forced to do in the end when they finally realised their murderous activities where getting them nowhere.
The irony of it all is that many Catholics don't even WANT a United Ireland, myself included! We are N.Irish, and want to stay that way.
But yes, thank God for the peace process, and I sincerely hope that Sinn Fein don't use this new development as another stick to stir up trouble which they take every opportunity to do and that the DUP don't use their position to try to gain support for their causes over Sinn Fein.
N. Ireland affairs should be run internally and Sinn Fein need to get their asses into Stormont and start doing the jobs they are getting paid to do for their country and quit hindering the process. How is anything going to be resolved if they keep up their "I'm not talking to you" stance? That they do so now is vitally important given the recent developments.

[DemolitionRed]

Jet, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I understand what its like when people come along with misconceived ideas about an entire country and its people. I have to listen to those misconceived ideas nearly every time I come to these boards.

Believe me, I condemn the IRA for what they did and I condemn the RUC for their ruthless aggression and shoot to kill policies. Innocents on both sides were murdered. But just like what we now see in Palestine/Israel, depending on which side your on, you will only condemn those who oppose you.

Corbyn has always been a peace atavist. He tries to find a cause before trying to find a solution and that's why he and others like him, were ideal candidates to send in when Margaret Thatchers government were having secret talks with the IRA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413 and so I will continue to defend him. Defending him is not the same as defending the IRA.

[smudgie]

Jet, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I understand what its like when people come along with misconceived ideas about an entire country and its people. I have to listen to those misconceived ideas nearly every time I come to these boards.

Believe me, I condemn the IRA for what they did and I condemn the RUC for their ruthless aggression and shoot to kill policies. Innocents on both sides were murdered. But just like what we now see in Palestine/Israel, depending on which side your on, you will only condemn those who oppose you.

Corbyn has always been a peace atavist. He tries to find a cause before trying to find a solution and that's why he and others like him, were ideal candidates to send in when Margaret Thatchers government were having secret talks with the IRA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413 and so I will continue to defend him. Defending him is not the same as defending the IRA.

Corbyn a peace activist in Northern Ireland.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[jet]

Jet, I'm sorry for what you have been through and I understand what its like when people come along with misconceived ideas about an entire country and its people. I have to listen to those misconceived ideas nearly every time I come to these boards.

Believe me, I condemn the IRA for what they did and I condemn the RUC for their ruthless aggression and shoot to kill policies. Innocents on both sides were murdered. But just like what we now see in Palestine/Israel, depending on which side your on, you will only condemn those who oppose you.

Corbyn has always been a peace atavist. He tries to find a cause before trying to find a solution and that's why he and others like him, were ideal candidates to send in when Margaret Thatchers government were having secret talks with the IRA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413 and so I will continue to defend him. Defending him is not the same as defending the IRA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy-corbyn-amid-concerns-ira-links/

Negotiating and sympathising are worlds apart. Thatcher negotiated, she certainly didn't sympathise.

Corbyn was an IRA friend and sympathiser, if you don't mind defending that, that is your right. I don't think there is any more to be said without going round in circles.

[Brillopad]

I agree Jet negotiating and sympathising are very different and Britain does not need a terrorist sympathiser as PM. I don't understand how he can even run for office with his history - he is a potential security thtreat. Politics in this country has become a total joke.

[JTM45]

I agree Jet negotiating and sympathising are very different and Britain does not need a terrorist sympathiser as PM. I don't understand how he can even run for office with his history - he is a potential security thtreat. Politics in this country has become a total joke.

So what do you think about 'Bloody Sunday' and similar incidents that happened in Northern Ireland ?

The biggest joke that's occured in British Politics in recent years is Theresa May calling a snap Election with extremely short notice that was predicted to result in a massive landslide victory for the Tories and still managing to screw it up in a massive fashion resulting in Labour with Corbyn at the helm being the strongest they have in years!

[user104658]

I agree Jet negotiating and sympathising are very different and Britain does not need a terrorist sympathiser as PM. I don't understand how he can even run for office with his history - he is a potential security thtreat. Politics in this country has become a total joke.
The reason he's allowed to run is because, in the real world, he is neither a terrorist sympathiser nor a security threat. I appreciate that for whatever reason, this is something that genuinely scares / concerns you but it's just not realistically a risk.

[Kazanne]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy-corbyn-amid-concerns-ira-links/

Negotiating and sympathising are worlds apart. Thatcher negotiated, she certainly didn't sympathise.

Corbyn was an IRA friend and sympathiser, if you don't mind defending that, that is your right. I don't think there is any more to be said without going round in circles.

:thumbs::cheer2:

[Brillopad]

The reason he's allowed to run is because, in the real world, he is neither a terrorist sympathiser nor a security threat. I appreciate that for whatever reason, this is something that genuinely scares / concerns you but it's just not realistically a risk.

It concerns a lot of people and rightly so. He has a questionable history and you can deny that all you like, but many are simply not prepared to overlook it. There's too much at stake.

[joeysteele]

The reason he's allowed to run is because, in the real world, he is neither a terrorist sympathiser nor a security threat. I appreciate that for whatever reason, this is something that genuinely scares / concerns you but it's just not realistically a risk.

Exactly TS.
This old chestnut is tediously being run endlessly, it may get applause from some just because Corbyn is a leader of Labour.
They were the same with Ed Miliband too,especially when the Mail cast aspersions on Ed's Father.

At least you restore a fair balance and coming from you is strong as you are not really a Labour/ Corbyn supporter.

[Brillopad]

Exactly TS.
This old chestnut is tediously being run endlessly, it may get applause from some just because Corbyn is a leader of Labour.
They were the same with Ed Miliband too,especially when the Mail cast aspersions on EU's Father.

At least you restore a fair balance and coming from you is strong as you are not really a Labour/ Corbyn supporter.

Old chestnut hey! Let's just ignore the facts - that's a real old chestnut for you.

[bots]

Exactly TS.
This old chestnut is tediously being run endlessly, it may get applause from some just because Corbyn is a leader of Labour.
They were the same with Ed Miliband too,especially when the Mail cast aspersions on EU's Father.

At least you restore a fair balance and coming from you is strong as you are not really a Labour/ Corbyn supporter.

Have to disagree with you there Joey, Corbyn would be considered a security risk from his past behaviour. As much as people would like to pretend that he is an angel spawned from god, his past is there for all to see. History can't be re-written i'm afraid to say.

In case people are in any doubt. Corbyn is still a leader in CND and affiliate with the Stop the war group, both of which would mark him as a security risk, that's not even including his past leanings.

[joeysteele]

Have to disagree with you there Joey, Corbyn would be considered a security risk from his past behaviour. As much as people would like to pretend that he is an angel spawned from god, his past is there for all to see. History can't be re-written i'm afraid to say.

I disagree with you.
Also it now appears that voters,particularly the majority of future voters in the UK,also disagree with you now too.

Time is now very much on Corbyn's side he has convinced likely millions the real venom.directed at him is wrong.

If any leaders past,true or wrong,good or bad has ever been splashed about by media and prejudiced opponents then Corbyn's has been.
Yet he has brought Labour back,not made it dead as many even on here said it would be when the Cons got their massive landslide.

Your view of him does not stand with those who voted and put their faith in him and his policies.
It is your view and mine opposite to yours is mine obviously.
However those who voted for Labour had no worries as to yours and others accusations as to Corbyn,either to his past or as to him being any nonsensical security risk.
That didn't stand up in this election and neither will it in the future as likely the electorate behind Labour now, grows even more.

[user104658]

It concerns a lot of people and rightly so. He has a questionable history and you can deny that all you like, but many are simply not prepared to overlook it. There's too much at stake.

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.


Have to disagree with you there Joey, Corbyn would be considered a security risk from his past behaviour. As much as people would like to pretend that he is an angel spawned from god, his past is there for all to see. History can't be re-written i'm afraid to say.

If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

[joeysteele]

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.




If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.


Thank you TS, your second response put what I wanted to say more succinctly.
Well said.

[bots]

They all have questionable histories, let's be frank here. I know it's not "our country" - but you seem VERY prepared to overlook Donald Trump's questionable history both personal and political when it suits? You seem very prepared to overlook Theresa May selling billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi that will most likely end up in the hands of terrorists? I'm not saying Corbyn's past is squeaky clean - show me anyone over the age of 40 who DOES have a squeaky clean past and I'll start drawing up the contracts for chocolate teapots - I'm saying he realistically isn't an "ISIS supporter" or a realistic security threat. It's smear-nonsense.




If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

I'm sorry, but thats not true. Its a democracy, so people have the right to stand provided they satisfy the rules, but that doesn't mean he will have access once elected to issues related to security if he does not have the clearance for a particular level.

There is precedence in the past, this also happened previously with labour cabinet ministers.

[Brillopad]

I disagree with you.
Also it now appears that voters,particularly the majority of future voters in the UK,also disagree with you now too.

Time is now very much on Corbyn's side he has convinced likely millions the real venom.directed at him is wrong.

If any leaders past,true or wrong,good or bad has ever been splashed about by media and prejudiced opponents then Corbyn's has been.
Yet he has brought Labour back,not made it dead as many even on here said it would be when the Cons got their massive landslide.

Your view of him does not stand with those who voted and put their faith in him and his policies.
It is your view and mine opposite to yours is mine obviously.
However those who voted for Labour had no worries as to yours and others accusations as to Corbyn,either to his past or as to him being any nonsensical security risk.
That didn't stand up in this election and neither will it in the future as likely the electorate behind Labour now, grows even more.

I wouldn't say he has so much 'convinced' as hoodwinked desperate people who fear more austerity into buying into his WORDS - and let's not 'convince' ourselves into thinking that at his point in time they are anything more than that - WORDS.

Here's a few more for you - free, free, free - nothing comes for FREE.

[user104658]

I'm sorry, but thats not true. Its a democracy, so people have the right to stand provided they satisfy the rules, but that doesn't mean he will have access once elected to issues related to security if he does not have the clearance for a particular level.

You're going to have to provide some sort of reference here for this to be anything more than opinion for me, I'm afraid.

I've done some (admittedly, brief) searching and all I can find is a handful of opinion pieces and quotes from what I would call disgruntled ex-security employees with seemingly a heavy Tory bias. Unless there is something more than that out there, it simply isn't ringing true that Corbyn is a "terrorism threat".

[bots]

You're going to have to provide some sort of reference here for this to be anything more than opinion for me, I'm afraid.

I've done some (admittedly, brief) searching and all I can find is a handful of opinion pieces and quotes from what I would call disgruntled ex-security employees with seemingly a heavy Tory bias. Unless there is something more than that out there, it simply isn't ringing true that Corbyn is a "terrorism threat".

I have personally been security vetted in the past, I know the criteria, for reference, check out this link as a starter

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/security-vetting-and-clearance

[jet]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

[user104658]

I have personally been security vetted in the past, I know the criteria, for reference, check out this link as a starter

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/security-vetting-and-clearance

Linking to the security criteria suggests that I have some pre-knowledge of Corbyn that would violate that criteria enough to make me personally feel like he is a realistic security threat? I'm asking for links to a reliable analysis of Corbyn in security terms that actually makes him seem like a risk.

From what I know of Corbyn, he is clearly not a REALISTIC security risk, whether there would be flags on the official criteria or not. When people are being security vetted I would assume they stay heavily on the side of caution.

[bots]

Linking to the security criteria suggests that I have some pre-knowledge of Corbyn that would violate that criteria enough to make me personally feel like he is a realistic security threat? I'm asking for links to a reliable analysis of Corbyn in security terms that actually makes him seem like a risk.

From what I know of Corbyn, he is clearly not a REALISTIC security risk, whether there would be flags on the official criteria or not. When people are being security vetted I would assume they stay heavily on the side of caution.

Being an affiliate or member of risk groups is an automatic fail. So, with his current associations he would fail, that's without even looking at anything historical.

Anyway, i'm done with this, if people don't want to accept information that is their right of course

[Brillopad]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

That is the crux of it I'm afraid, people refuse to hear and let it affect their lives unless it's personal. They care, but not enough to let it affect their pockets.

[joeysteele]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

Just take care there jet in your biased generalisation.

I didn't know them as I was only born in the 90s.
However 2 of my family died in the troubles.

However NONE of my family see Corbyn as a terrorist threat despite those losses.
Some even voted Labour this time too.

Moving on has been the only way they have coped with the losses,they are hopeful for more coming together and the peace process continuing.
A peace process,no matter your own view about him,that Corbyn fully supports and wants continued too.

[user104658]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.
I get that this is a personally upsetting issue for you but, again, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence to believe that Corbyn actually supported IRA violence.

From my viewpoint, it seems a lot like personal anger means a lot of people are unwilling to accept that concessions and diplomacy are better ways to END violence and killing than outrage and indignation, no matter how justified. Of course we're seeing the exact same thing with extremist terror now. I fully believe that people would rather have politicians rant, rage and condemn until the cows come home even if it meant 10 more bombings... Than sit around a table and play nice to save lives.

People would rather have Corbyn condemn the IRA now even if it risked poking the wasps nest, than have him refer to them as friends in order to maintain peaceful diplomacy.

I know which tactic I find riskier in terms of truly protecting the public. It might leave a bad taste in people's mouthes but frankly, if Corbyn wants to give out free hand jobs to the IRA in exchange for refraining from violence, that seems like the sensible option.

[Brillopad]

A peace process,no matter your own view about him,that Corbyn fully supports and wants continued too.

So you believe. That is not fact.

[user104658]

Being an affiliate or member of risk groups is an automatic fail. So, with his current associations he would fail, that's without even looking at anything historical.

Anyway, i'm done with this, if people don't want to accept information that is their right of course

Yes but I'm not asking whether or not he would fail because of his affiliation with those groups, as I fully believe that his affiliation with those groups was with a view to promoting peace, not promoting violence.

I'm not interested in technicalities that mean he would be an "automatic fail" I'm asking for some sort of evidence that he supports violence, wants to further terrorism, and is a realistic risk to the public.

You're not giving me any information beyond that to "accept" or otherwise?

[user104658]

That is the crux of it I'm afraid, people refuse to hear and let it affect their lives unless it's personal. They care, but not enough to let it affect their pockets.
I'm not sure if you actually believe this or you're just trying to make a point of some sort, but the suggestion that "folks don't care that Corbyn is a terrorist because money" is so far wide of the mark it's not even worth addressing.

[Brillopad]

Yes but I'm not asking whether or not he would fail because of his affiliation with those groups, as I fully believe that his affiliation with those groups was with a view to promoting peace, not promoting violence.

I'm not interested in technicalities that mean he would be an "automatic fail" I'm asking for some sort of evidence that he supports violence, wants to further terrorism, and is a realistic risk to the public.

You're not giving me any information beyond that to "accept" or otherwise?

I think more to the point is that many don't trust him and therefore have no confidence in him and it us up to him and his suppporters, if they want more to vote for him, to prove he is not a security risk.

It isn't up to others to prove he is. He needs to take some responsibility here. He has to earn that trust - he can neither demand or expect it.

[user104658]

I think more to the point is that many don't trust him and therefore have no confidence in him and it us up to him and his suppporters, if they want more to vote for him, to prove he is not a security risk.

It isn't up to others to prove he is. He needs to take some responsibility here.

Actually, in the context of this thread, the security risk issue was brought up by someone insisting that he is a risk. Therefore, the onus is on that person (and those who have agreed with the statement) to provide something that backs up that claim if they want it to be believed.

I think the rest of us were quite comfortable moving on with the discussion :shrug:. It's not something we haven't all heard before, unless there's something compelling to be shared on the subject, it's a bit of a pointless distraction. Or is that maybe the point?

[Brillopad]

Actually, in the context of this thread, the security risk issue was brought up by someone insisting that he is a risk. Therefore, the onus is on that person (and those who have agreed with the statement) to provide something that backs up that claim if they want it to be believed.

I think the rest of us were quite comfortable moving on with the discussion :shrug:. It's not something we haven't all heard before, unless there's something compelling to be shared on the subject, it's a bit of a pointless distraction. Or is that maybe the point?

Unfortunately for him many consider the issue more than a 'pointless distraction'. If he wants more support he has to clarify the situation and address in detail all the evidence out there that he is a sympathiser rather that a negotiator. He wants to be PM - the onus is on him.

[user104658]

Unfortunately for him many consider the issue more than a 'pointless distraction'. If he wants more support he has to clarify the situation and address in detail all the evidence out there that he is a sympathiser rather that a negotiator. He wants to be PM - the onus is on him.

Right but, again, that has very little to do with jet's claims on this specific thread;


The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers
This is the only question I am addressing by point ting out that it's simply a false statement that people "don't care" or (in your presumably intentionally offensive words) "will overlook it for money in their pockets"... But rather that plenty of people simply do not believe that he is a supporter of violence in any way. There's no evidence for it and, if there is, I'm asking for that evidence to be provided.


Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of discussion to be had about it on another thread that specifically asks that question? I'm saying it's being used to distract from the very current issue of May, her ability and credibility to lead, and the DUP.

[jet]

I get that this is a personally upsetting issue for you but, again, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence to believe that Corbyn actually supported IRA violence.

From my viewpoint, it seems a lot like personal anger means a lot of people are unwilling to accept that concessions and diplomacy are better ways to END violence and killing than outrage and indignation, no matter how justified. Of course we're seeing the exact same thing with extremist terror now. I fully believe that people would rather have politicians rant, rage and condemn until the cows come home even if it meant 10 more bombings... Than sit around a table and play nice to save lives.

People would rather have Corbyn condemn the IRA now even if it risked poking the wasps nest, than have him refer to them as friends in order to maintain peaceful diplomacy.

I know which tactic I find riskier in terms of truly protecting the public. It might leave a bad taste in people's mouthes but frankly, if Corbyn wants to give out free hand jobs to the IRA in exchange for refraining from violence, that seems like the sensible option.

Of course concessions and diplomacy are better ways, and you obviously still believe this is what he was doing despite all the evidence to the contrary of his sympathy and patronage of the IRA. You just ignore the numerous sources and the people who knew of him and his activities in this country before some people here were even born.
Tony Blair was very active in peace talks with the IRA, so was Margaret Thatcher, but were they ever seen attending a funereal for an IRA terrorist? Did they attend rallies and give speeches commemorating the IRA dead? Were they pals with numerous IRA men who at the time were bombing the UK mainland? Corbyn was, and you can forget about the idea that he was in any way important to the peace process, he was not. He even was against the first attempt at peace with the Anglo Irish Agreement. Have you even bothered to read the numerous articles going back before this election mess detailing his involvement with the IRA?

I have no idea if he is a threat anymore, but he's certainly not the kind of person I would want as my Prime Minister.
The way this country is going we'll have an Isis supporting Prime Minister in 40 years time. But as long as they promise more dosh in our wallets, it's all good.
But you believe what you believe and there is no point in trying to change your mind or anyone else's. So peace to all and have a good day.

[user104658]

The way this country is going we'll have an Isis supporting Prime Minister in 40 years time. But as long as they promise more dosh in our wallets, it's all good.

You were actually starting to bend my ear slightly until you kicked in with this hysteria, and the deberately offensive (and entirely false) jibe about "Mo Money" to try to support it. Now I'm struggling to take the rest of it as seriously.

[Brillopad]

Of course concessions and diplomacy are better ways, and you obviously still believe this is what he was doing despite all the evidence to the contrary of his sympathy and patronage of the IRA. You just ignore the numerous sources and the people who knew of him and his activities in this country before some people here were even born.
Tony Blair was very active in peace talks with the IRA, so was Margaret Thatcher, but were they ever seen attending a funereal for an IRA terrorist? Did they attend rallies and give speeches commemorating the IRA dead? Were they pals with numerous IRA men who at the time were bombing the UK mainland? Corbyn was, and you can forget about the idea that he was in any way important to the peace process, he was not. He even was against the first attempt at peace with the Anglo Irish Agreement.
I have no idea if he is a threat anymore, but he's certainly not the kind of person I would want as my Prime Minister.
The way this country is going we'll have an Isis supporting Prime Minister in 40 years time. But as long as they promise more dosh in our wallets, it's all good.
But you believe what you believe and there is no point in trying to change your mind or anyone else's. So peace to all and have a good day.

I think people already have their concerns on whether we already have an ISIS supporter on our hands. Given his past history with the IRA, his refusal to clarify this issue and his open border policies - it is something to think about. Hasn't there also been some evidence of him attending ISIS rallies/funerals? I seem to remember seeing something.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/813329/Jeremy-Corbyn-ISIS-backers-NOT-prosecuted-political-views

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/jeremy-corbyn-said-isil-supporters-should-not-prosecuted-expressing/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544252/Corbyn-Subjective-treat-ISIS-jihadis-terrorists.html

Terrorist sympathizing seems to be a hobby of his.

[jet]

You were actually starting to bend my ear slightly until you kicked in with this hysteria, and the deberately offensive (and entirely false) jibe about "Mo Money" to try to support it. Now I'm struggling to take the rest of it as seriously.

Call it sheer frustration. :fist: Nobody will believe Corbyn is anything but a peacemaker despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I can choose to believe people must be in it for the money as I don't see any other reason people think a sympathiser of IRA murderers of their own country's citizens is a good candidate for Prime Minister. Isn't more money in peoples pockets what he's promised?

[user104658]

I genuinely think you've lost sight of reality Brillo. You might not agree with or understand many of Corbyn's attitudes towards the political issues surrounding terrorism, and that's fair enough really, but this idea that he's actually some sort of ISIS sleeper agent who has slithered to the top of UK politics and hoodwinked 40%+ of the population... It's just pure fantasy. Ludicrous fantasy.

[Brillopad]

I genuinely think you've lost sight of reality Brillo. You might not agree with or understand many of Corbyn's attitudes towards the political issues surrounding terrorism, and that's fair enough really, but this idea that he's actually some sort of ISIS sleeper agent who has slithered to the top of UK politics and hoodwinked 40%+ of the population... It's just pure fantasy. Ludicrous fantasy.

Did he not say that we should alliow Jihadist fighters who have most likely killed Members of the British armed forces, or if not, not through want of trying, back into our country. Do you really not think that such people pose a threat to all of us? I really cannot fathom that thought process.

Corbyn does sound like a terrorist sympathiser to me.

[user104658]

Call it sheer frustration. :fist: Nobody will believe Corbyn is anything but a peacemaker despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I can choose to believe people must be in it for the money as I don't see any other reason people think a sympathiser of murderers of their own country's citizens is a good candidate for Prime Minister. Isn't more money in peoples pockets what he's promised?

"More money in your pocket" is a gross oversimplification; what he's promising is to stop the process of all of the money being syphoned off to the already-rich and Friends of the Tories.

The destruction of the NHS, the cruel and uncaring attitudes towards the disabled, and the clear bias towards the super-rich and landed gentry over... Well... Everyone and anyone else... demonstrated by the Conservative Party - topped off with the brand new cherry of a quite clearly arrogant yet incompetent leader in Theresa May - might have something to do with it people's choices more than literal money in their back pocket?

I didn't vote for Corbyn, I've been slowly swayed from believing that Scottish independence is necessarily the best path right now but I voted, and will continue to vote, SNP as they are the best option for protecting the interests of Scotland whether that's within the UK or not.

I even - as much as my skin crawls to say it, quite like Ruth Davidson and find the Scottish Conservatives message to overall be far more progressive and positive than the grey clouds that pour out of Westminster. But the Westminster Tories - for many - are just straight up toxic. Their message is of a selfish, uncaring and bleak future and its delivered by May like a talking wooden spoon reading from an out of focus autocue.

Rwlly take a hard look at the alternative before being baffled about why people would be starting to drift back to Labour.

[user104658]

Did he not say that we should alliow Jihadist fighters who have most likely killed Members of the British armed forces, or if not, not through want of trying, back into our country. Do you really not think that such people pose a threat to all of us? I really cannot fathom that thought process.

Corbyn does sound like a terrorist sympathiser to me.
I'll give you this much Brillo: I'm at least starting to understand that you have genuine fears that fuel your political beliefs and you're not just typing to score points. So that's progress, I suppose.

However I think, from now several months of experience on these forums (years? I can't remember when you rejoined tbh) that you have a very black and white view of the issues at hand and see it all as being "really quite simple" when they are actually, without exception, really very complex. I think by extension of that, you also assume that those who have opposing views to you also see things as being black and white / simple?

I am aware that Corbyn is not a perfect choice. I didn't and haven't ever voted Labour. However I am also aware that the SNP and their policies are far from perfect; they are my BEST choice but in all honesty I wish I had a better one. I am also aware that there are Conservative MPs who have the best of intentions for their constituents.

But the overall trajectory of the Conservative Party under Theresa May, their pandering to authoritarian sensibilities, their deliberate destruction to pave the way for privatisation that benefits them and those close to them directly... None of that can be safely ignored, either?

You have a stance of "defending them no matter what", spinning everything into a positive no matter how obviously negative it is, and it makes it impossible to have any sort of genuine political discussion.

[jet]

"More money in your pocket" is a gross oversimplification; what he's promising is to stop the process of all of the money being syphoned off to the already-rich and Friends of the Tories.

The destruction of the NHS, the cruel and uncaring attitudes towards the disabled, and the clear bias towards the super-rich and landed gentry over... Well... Everyone and anyone else... demonstrated by the Conservative Party - topped off with the brand new cherry of a quite clearly arrogant yet incompetent leader in Theresa May - might have something to do with it people's choices more than literal money in their back pocket?

I didn't vote for Corbyn, I've been slowly swayed from believing that Scottish independence is necessarily the best path right now but I voted, and will continue to vote, SNP as they are the best option for protecting the interests of Scotland whether that's within the UK or not.

I even - as much as my skin crawls to say it, quite like Ruth Davidson and find the Scottish Conservatives message to overall be far more progressive and positive than the grey clouds that pour out of Westminster. But the Westminster Tories - for many - are just straight up toxic. Their message is of a selfish, uncaring and bleak future and its delivered by May like a talking wooden spoon reading from an out of focus autocue.

Rwlly take a hard look at the alternative before being baffled about why people would be starting to drift back to Labour.

If I resided in the UK, I wouldn't have voted for Conservative and I wouldn't have voted for Labour under Corbyn. Here in N.Ireland I didn't vote for Sinn Fein or the DUP and voting for any other party would have been a wasted vote. I only vote for someone I can have at least some respect and trust for, as much as you can respect and trust a politician.
You are fortunate to support a party that you believe in and that doesn't have a leader who supports murderers (Corbyn) or doesn't look after the more vulnerable members of your country (May).
I'd rather not vote at all than vote for a lesser of two evils.

[user104658]

If I resided in the UK, I wouldn't have voted for Conservative and I wouldn't have voted for Labour under Corbyn. Here in N.Ireland I didn't vote for Sinn Fein or the DUP and voting for any other party would have been a wasted vote. I only vote for someone I can have at least some respect and trust for, as much as you can respect and trust a politician.
You are fortunate to support a party that you believe in and that doesn't have a leader who supports murderers (Corbyn) or doesn't look after the more vulnerable members of your country (May).
I'd rather not vote at all than vote for a lesser of two evils.
The problem with that though is that "no vote" is effectively a vote for the party that is currently in power, and there's no point pretending otherwise. At least, this is the case in a first-past-the-post democratic system. If the party that is in power is your WORST option, the only real choice is to vote however you can to remove them from power, otherwise you might as well be voting FOR them.

For what it's worth though; I think first-past-the-post is deeply flawed in several basic ways. But it's the system we have and the one we have to work with, and unfortunately, that often means tactical voting.

[jet]

I think people already have their concerns on whether we already have an ISIS supporter on our hands. Given his past history with the IRA, his refusal to clarify this issue and his open border policies - it is something to think about. Hasn't there also been some evidence of him attending ISIS rallies/funerals? I seem to remember seeing something.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/813329/Jeremy-Corbyn-ISIS-backers-NOT-prosecuted-political-views

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/jeremy-corbyn-said-isil-supporters-should-not-prosecuted-expressing/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544252/Corbyn-Subjective-treat-ISIS-jihadis-terrorists.html

Terrorist sympathizing seems to be a hobby of his.

Indeed it does, its a disturbing weakness of his.
Having an Isis sympathiser as PM in the future doesn't seem such a ludicrous theory, given that Isis haven't killed a fraction of our citizens that the IRA have and yet there is Corbyn, the IRA sympathiser being hailed as the saviour of our democracy and seen as a great choice for PM by many. So why not overlook that they are an Isis supporter if we like their social policies?

[Ammi]

Call it sheer frustration. :fist: Nobody will believe Corbyn is anything but a peacemaker despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I can choose to believe people must be in it for the money as I don't see any other reason people think a sympathiser of IRA murderers of their own country's citizens is a good candidate for Prime Minister. Isn't more money in peoples pockets what he's promised?

..I feel your frustrations so much, Jet..:hug:..it's always been a difficult one for me as well with Jeremy Corbyn because of personal reasons and connections with NI and I make no excuses for him at all..(other than..)...people/situations/world events etc are so complicated as to make people so multi-dimensional...for us living in England, I guess you could say that it's less 'black and white'..?...as unpopular as this will be, I don't really want a government head of Jeremy Corbyn but not because of any IRA links he's had, more because I just don't feel he's the answer to the (..well grim mess..)...we all find ourselves in...he's too 'left' and too much the opposite of Theresa May and what our present government have been with the extreme austerity in this country...no 'extreme' is good and we've certainly had an extreme government to prove that..what I feel we need is a leader to bring it all back toward the centre...not pull in the opposite direction, you know...that for me will only continue problems and a divided country but just a different set of problems...I think we need a Labour government so much right now, but I'm so not sure about him being the person to lead it....having said that, we still have to experience the difference he would make as a leader/good/bad/or indifferent whereas with Theresa May and the Conservatives, we've had that experience and it's fairly rubbish..:laugh:...

...this country is so much in divide at atm..and I think more than anything else, that's what is weakening us and making it all feel impossible...there is very little tolerance from anyone, the intolerance is just directed at different things and in different directions is all...and the 'sides' are just pushing further and further apart in a 'split country'...I guess I just can't see that changing with Jeremy Corbyn as PM if it ever happens..(but we'll see, if it does..)...Brexit really was the thing that showed how divided we were with such a close vote...and the closeness of the voting in this election has showed that the 'coming together' is still a far off 'dream'...it's really hard for anyone who is more in the centre to have their voice heard with all of the screaming at each other of the 'left and right'...(and very little listening' with minds already made up..)...actually strangely one of the things I liked most of all that Jeremy said during the campaign...that we need ears to communicate and understand as well...the silly thing is, is that we all want the same thing, don't we, were our fears and concerns come from are the only thing that really differs...I know the Conservative party with their present policies and leader can't bring us what we need and sadly I don't think Jeremy can either...but if he could and if he did..?...that would also balance some of the things of his past..?..for me it would anyway, but we're all going to be different in our personal painful experiences....


...anyways, I think that I've just droned on and made no sense at all but I'd read your posts in this thread...and as always, they made me think so much and are such thought provoking reads...I completely, completely, completely understand your frustrations my friend...you take care, ok/I hope you're enjoying BB and have chosen a good favourite for me to champion..:laugh:...

...:hug:..:love:...

[user104658]

Indeed it does, its a disturbing weakness of his.
Having an Isis sympathiser as PM in the future doesn't seem such a ludicrous theory, given that Isis haven't killed a fraction of our citizens that the IRA have and yet there is Corbyn, the IRA sympathiser being hailed as the saviour of our democracy and seen as a great choice for PM by many. So why not overlook that they are an Isis supporter if we like their social policies?
It seems that people pick and choose on this a bit though. People are constantly overlooking our government's support of certain states in the middle east - and their haste to sell arms in the middle east - even though it is perfectly well known that this directly and indirectly supports terrorist groups. Is the message here, then, that it's OK to support terrorism so long as when you stand up in public, you say otherwise?

[Tom4784]

All this Corbyn stuff is just plain silly, people are clinging onto things that happened 20+ years ago which have been blown out of proportion and even presented in a false manner for purposes of character assassination all while ignoring the fact that May is arming the middle east which has the effect of stirring that volatile pot and is actually, in this day and age, is in talks of forming an actual coallition with a party that ACTUALLY has links to terrorism.

You can't make up this level of rampant hypocrisy.

[Ammi]

It seems that people pick and choose on this a bit though. People are constantly overlooking our government's support of certain states in the middle east - and their haste to sell arms in the middle east - even though it is perfectly well known that this directly and indirectly supports terrorist groups. Is the message here, then, that it's OK to support terrorism so long as when you stand up in public, you say otherwise?

...we all pick and choose our 'hypocrisies' though..I mean we all do, it's called being human..things are never black and white so we factor other stuff in as well, plus we do 'excuse' or 'overlook' or find justifications etc f something tends to lean with our own thought processes and mind-sets but another situation that is more opposed to what our beliefs are...well, our judgements can be quite different...how much an individual person might do that/whether they're 'prone' to type thing might vary...but we all do it..each and every one of us as Tiny Tim would say....throwing it' at others only has those others (correctly) throwing it back and so and so go one the circles...endlessly and pointlessly....anyways, I'm done/I'm tired, I need a sleep..I must be getting old....

[joeysteele]

You'd never guess coming to this page that this is a thread made about a Con MP stating that Mrs May has to go this year.

What has been done is sidetrack it onto Corbyn and spout off things all covered in the election and before from a personal hate perspective only.
Quoting the Mail and Express for goodness sake.

Anyway,has anyone any real thoughts on what the Con MP said as to Mrs May having to go backed up by Anna Soubry too today too.
Rather than hide the failure of Mrs May and the mess she has brought to govt.

[bots]

All this Corbyn stuff is just plain silly, people are clinging onto things that happened 20+ years ago which have been blown out of proportion and even presented in a false manner for purposes of character assassination all while ignoring the fact that May is arming the middle east which has the effect of stirring that volatile pot and is actually, in this day and age, is in talks of forming an actual coallition with a party that ACTUALLY has links to terrorism.

You can't make up this level of rampant hypocrisy.

You can't have it every way though, a lot has been said about how he is a principled man and has stuck to his beliefs all his life. So, if that were the case, then what he did 20+ years ago is very relevant.

I am a firm believer in democracy, and if enough people vote for him, and bring him to power, then I will accept it, but I won't ever agree with him or support him.

I would never support a Tory led government by May now either, she is damaged goods and needs to go.

If either of the 2 parties genuinely learn anything, it should have been that the country is divided and moving further to the left or right and becoming less rather than more inclusive is not the answer.

[user104658]

:fist: Don't you quote me with your reasonableness Ms Ammi I'm the one on this thread already saying that it's not all black and white. [emoji14]

[jet]

All this Corbyn stuff is just plain silly, people are clinging onto things that happened 20+ years ago which have been blown out of proportion and even presented in a false manner for purposes of character assassination all while ignoring the fact that May is arming the middle east which has the effect of stirring that volatile pot and is actually, in this day and age, is in talks of forming an actual coallition with a party that ACTUALLY has links to terrorism.

You can't make up this level of rampant hypocrisy.

All I can do now is laugh at the sheer refusal to face the facts :laugh: ....and as much as I dislike the bigoted DUP, their links to terrorism is a drop in the ocean compared to those of the IRA. Further, Arlene Foster wasn't running for British Prime Minister and getting great support, Corbyn was.

Who is being hypocritical again?

[Brillopad]

I'll give you this much Brillo: I'm at least starting to understand that you have genuine fears that fuel your political beliefs and you're not just typing to score points. So that's progress, I suppose.

However I think, from now several months of experience on these forums (years? I can't remember when you rejoined tbh) that you have a very black and white view of the issues at hand and see it all as being "really quite simple" when they are actually, without exception, really very complex. I think by extension of that, you also assume that those who have opposing views to you also see things as being black and white / simple?

I am aware that Corbyn is not a perfect choice. I didn't and haven't ever voted Labour. However I am also aware that the SNP and their policies are far from perfect; they are my BEST choice but in all honesty I wish I had a better one. I am also aware that there are Conservative MPs who have the best of intentions for their constituents.

But the overall trajectory of the Conservative Party under Theresa May, their pandering to authoritarian sensibilities, their deliberate destruction to pave the way for privatisation that benefits them and those close to them directly... None of that can be safely ignored, either?

You have a stance of "defending them no matter what", spinning everything into a positive no matter how obviously negative it is, and it makes it impossible to have any sort of genuine political discussion.

TBH it's not so much defending Tories as protecting us from Labour. I do feel safer with the Tories. I am not rich, I'm ok, although I have struggled in the past, but I feel on more solid ground with them. I don't particularly like May, I would rather see David Davis as PM, but she is PM ATM so I will support her.

Like most I want more money spent our public services, especially the NHS, but not at the cost of our security and freedoms and, ATM, I feel the tories and their policies are the most likely to do that. I also want to see a fairer society but the way Labour are going about it with policies that will break the bank and put us further in debt is not the way to do it. Corbynis full of promises, like he thinks he has all the answers, but with nothing substantial to back them up in my book. Add that to the security risk I feel he poses I don't want anything to do with him.

I care about the future of my children and their families and with Corbyn and his views I fear for the future for all our children. I feel he cares more about minority groups than the majority of people in this country. There is of course nothing wrong with caring about the less fortunate or excluded in our society but I sometimes feel he takes it to extremes and sees himself, rather arrogantly, as some kind of saviour for all mankind - he us not - and I think this blinds his viewpoint and makes him potentially dangerous - hence his sympathetic views on terrorists.

He seems to see terrorism as some kind of understandable fight against injustice and it isn't. Terrorism is never justified. I think he may have a chip on his shoulder about his privileged upbringing and some kind of 'issue' with the way he was brought up. But then again, like many politicians, maybe he is simply on a power trip, but is better as disguising his motives. Anyway there are too many maybe's in my mind to trust him.

Then or course there is Brexit, God help us if he gets his hands on that, is all I can say. I want the tories for that.

[user104658]

All I can do now is laugh at the sheer refusal to face the facts :laugh: ....and as much as I dislike the bigoted DUP, their links to terrorism is a drop in the ocean compared to those of the IRA. Further, Arlene Foster wasn't running for British Prime Minister and getting great support, Corbyn was.

Who is being hypocritical again?

A heavy bias is starting to show now here, jet, and it's a real disservice to the measured and balanced posts you were making just yesterday. You've prompted me to pencil in a time to honestly, genuinely and openly look into Corbyn's history with the IRA when I get the time to give it the attention it deserves (currently being intermittently pestered by two bored children).

But your posts today are a world apart and the balance has completely disappeared? It's a shame, is all I'm saying really, and I hope your earlier posts were the genuine ones.

[edited to add] I'm not on a high horse here, I'm no stranger to having my posts dip (or plummet) in quality for emotional reasons. Dunno if anyone has noticed though fingers crossed.

[jet]

..I feel your frustrations so much, Jet..:hug:..it's always been a difficult one for me as well with Jeremy Corbyn because of personal reasons and connections with NI and I make no excuses for him at all..(other than..)...people/situations/world events etc are so complicated as to make people so multi-dimensional...for us living in England, I guess you could say that it's less 'black and white'..?...as unpopular as this will be, I don't really want a government head of Jeremy Corbyn but not because of any IRA links he's had, more because I just don't feel he's the answer to the (..well grim mess..)...we all find ourselves in...he's too 'left' and too much the opposite of Theresa May and what our present government have been with the extreme austerity in this country...no 'extreme' is good and we've certainly had an extreme government to prove that..what I feel we need is a leader to bring it all back toward the centre...not pull in the opposite direction, you know...that for me will only continue problems and a divided country but just a different set of problems...I think we need a Labour government so much right now, but I'm so not sure about him being the person to lead it....having said that, we still have to experience the difference he would make as a leader/good/bad/or indifferent whereas with Theresa May and the Conservatives, we've had that experience and it's fairly rubbish..:laugh:...

...this country is so much in divide at atm..and I think more than anything else, that's what is weakening us and making it all feel impossible...there is very little tolerance from anyone, the intolerance is just directed at different things and in different directions is all...and the 'sides' are just pushing further and further apart in a 'split country'...I guess I just can't see that changing with Jeremy Corbyn as PM if it ever happens..(but we'll see, if it does..)...Brexit really was the thing that showed how divided we were with such a close vote...and the closeness of the voting in this election has showed that the 'coming together' is still a far off 'dream'...it's really hard for anyone who is more in the centre to have their voice heard with all of the screaming at each other of the 'left and right'...(and very little listening' with minds already made up..)...actually strangely one of the things I liked most of all that Jeremy said during the campaign...that we need ears to communicate and understand as well...the silly thing is, is that we all want the same thing, don't we, were our fears and concerns come from are the only thing that really differs...I know the Conservative party with their present policies and leader can't bring us what we need and sadly I don't think Jeremy can either...but if he could and if he did..?...that would also balance some of the things of his past..?..for me it would anyway, but we're all going to be different in our personal painful experiences....


...anyways, I think that I've just droned on and made no sense at all but I'd read your posts in this thread...and as always, they made me think so much and are such thought provoking reads...I completely, completely, completely understand your frustrations my friend...you take care, ok/I hope you're enjoying BB and have chosen a good favourite for me to champion..:laugh:...

...:hug:..:love:...

Ammi, you have the ability to calm and make things seem that they are not worth getting all tied up in knots over. Have I told you lately that I love you? :love:

I haven't been watching much of BB yet and I haven't a favourite...I better get with it and stick to posting in the BB forum, it's a lot less stressful. I think it's time for me to be done in here. :laugh:

[Brillopad]

You'd never guess coming to this page that this is a thread made about a Con MP stating that Mrs May has to go this year.

What has been done is sidetrack it onto Corbyn and spout off things all covered in the election and before from a personal hate perspective only.
Quoting the Mail and Express for goodness sake.

Anyway,has anyone any real thoughts on what the Con MP said as to Mrs May having to go backed up by Anna Soubry too today too.
Rather than hide the failure of Mrs May and the mess she has brought to govt.

There were 3 sources all saying the same thing so what a moot point. Besides I did a check on the Express for it's bias and it was classed as centre right, from memory, and a newspaper known for producing fact based articles - but don't let your own bias get in the way of that. :shrug:

[user104658]

TBH it's not so much defending Tories as protecting us from Labour. I do feel safer with the Tories. I am not rich, I'm ok, although I have struggled in the past, but I feel on more solid ground with them. I don't particularly like May, I would rather see David Davis as PM, but she is PM ATM so I will support her.

Like most I want more money spent our public services, especially the NHS, but not at the cost of our security and freedoms and, ATM, I feel the tories and their policies are the most likely to do that. I also want to see a fairer society but the way Labour are going about it with policies that will break the bank and put us further in debt is not the way to do it. Corbynis full of promises, like he thinks he has all the answers, but with nothing substantial to back them up in my book. Add that to the security risk I feel he poses I don't want anything to do with him.

I care about the future of my children and their families and with Corbyn and his views I fear for the future for all our children. I feel he cares more about minority groups than the majority of people in this country. There is of course nothing wrong with caring about the less fortunate or excluded in our society but I sometimes feel he takes it to extremes and sees himself, rather arrogantly, as some kind of saviour for all mankind - he us not - and I think this blinds his viewpoint and makes him potentially dangerous - hence his sympathetic views on terrorists.

He seems to see terrorism as some kind of understandable fight against injustice and it isn't. Terrorism is never justified. I think he may have a chip on his shoulder about his privileged upbringing and some kind of 'issue' with the way he was brought up. But then again, like many politicians, maybe he is simply on a power trip, but is better as disguising his motives. Anyway there are too many maybe's in my mind to trust him.

Most of that is pretty reasonable, I suppose. I do think you maybe overlook the dramatic impact that Conservative "over-cutting" could have on public services - I think they have the real potential to do irreversible damage there that will affect everyone at some point, and there are definitely more than a couple of characters high up in the party who are purely self-serving (Johnson, Gove, Hunt, quite honestly May, etc.). If the party could cut out that element, they would be much stronger for it.

In terms of Corbyn I suppose I can appreciate the concern that he might not take external threats seriously enough, for those who see those threats as the most pressing issue we currently face. I genuinely don't, and I think the current "unyielding" approach needs some serious thought in order for truly effective solutions to be found, but I can see why people who think otherwise would find Corbyn worrying. I still maintain though, that the idea that he actively WANTS to see people harmed by terrorist attacks is highly, highly unlikely. I'm sure that at the very least he does believe that he is a pacifist who seeks peace and the most that can be said about that is that he's misguided in how far he's willing to take that (by truly befriending violent individuals - if he indeed has - like I said I'm going to properly look into it at some point for myself because being honest, I haven't much and I'm obviously not interested in what "the papers" have to say about it).

Then or course there is Brexit, God help us if he gets his hands on that, is all I can say. I want the tories for that.

I honestly think Brexit should be a separate issue at this point, it's muddying the waters for one and also, party politics is disrupting the issue. My honest belief is that some sort of cross-party group outside of election politics needs to take over handling the Brexit process or it is going to go absolutely horribly for everyone. We all know it's happening now, everyone wants the best possible outcome... electioneering needs to be kept AWAY from it completely. At the very least, May has to be kept right out of the process. WHether you're a Conservative supporter or not... the bare fact is, she does not have what it takes to go into negotiations with the EU heavy hitters and come away with a good deal for the country. She simply can't do it. She couldn't back when it was looking like she had a huge majorty of the country behind her... and she doesn't even have that to prop her up now. They will never take her seriously.

[DemolitionRed]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

The IRA did murder civilians over the years as did the Loyalist paramilitaries on the other side. Murders should never be condoned or justified, which ever side they were on. Nobody is suggesting the IRA were angels but if we are going to call them evil murderers then we must also accept that both sides had blood on their hands and all of that has been recorded in history.

We too suffered the bombings in the UK. We too suffered the loss of loved ones; be them civilians or British soldiers in NI. We had to bury our dead just as Ireland had to.

We also need to include the U.S government for funding the IRA. Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Reagan all had strong ancestral heritage with Ireland and they certainly didn't like the way the Catholics were being treated in the North. Does that make Nixon, Carter, Kennedy and Reagan terrorists? And what about Blair who did so much to bring about a peace treaty in NI. Was he a terrorist for joining forces with the U.S lie and helped bring about a war that killed hundreds and thousands of innocents. Should we call Cameron and May terrorists for funding the Saudi's who in turn fund ISIS and who also support and fund the Israeli apartheid?

[Brillopad]

All this Corbyn stuff is just plain silly, people are clinging onto things that happened 20+ years ago which have been blown out of proportion and even presented in a false manner for purposes of character assassination all while ignoring the fact that May is arming the middle east which has the effect of stirring that volatile pot and is actually, in this day and age, is in talks of forming an actual coallition with a party that ACTUALLY has links to terrorism.

You can't make up this level of rampant hypocrisy.

Twenty years is really not that long ago, although of course it seems it when you are only in your early twenties - but Corbyn knows Better.

Terrorism is a heinous crime and any sympathy for it, no matter how long ago, can ever be ignored. He has also demonstrated similar views much more recently regarding ISIS so as a supporter of his your own rampant hypocrisy does not go unnoticed.

[jet]

A heavy bias is starting to show now here, jet, and it's a real disservice to the measured and balanced posts you were making just yesterday. You've prompted me to pencil in a time to honestly, genuinely and openly look into Corbyn's history with the IRA when I get the time to give it the attention it deserves (currently being intermittently pestered by two bored children).

But your posts today are a world apart and the balance has completely disappeared? It's a shame, is all I'm saying really, and I hope your earlier posts were the genuine ones.

[edited to add] I'm not on a high horse here, I'm no stranger to having my posts dip (or plummet) in quality for emotional reasons. Dunno if anyone has noticed though fingers crossed.

Yes, I would agree with you that my posts are becoming more emotional and probably just plain bloody minded due to frustration. I have very personal reasons for getting so emotional about Corbyn and I can't expect anyone to feel what I feel, that's impossible and unfair. So if I can't maintain balance I should opt out of the discussion, and I will.

[Brillopad]

Yes, I would agree with you that my posts are becoming more emotional and probably just plain bloody minded due to frustration. I have very personal reasons for getting so emotional about Corbyn and I can't expect anyone to feel what I feel, that's impossible and unfair. So if I can't maintain balance I should opt out of the discussion, and I will.

A much bigger post than most on here. Hat off to you Jet. But your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, probably more so because of your experience, so please come back.

[Tom4784]

Twenty years is really not that long ago, although of course it seems it when you are only in your early twenties - but Corbyn knows Better.

Terrorism is a heinous crime and any sympathy for it, no matter how long ago, can ever be ignored. He has also demonstrated similar views much more recently regarding ISIS so as a supporter of his your own rampant hypocrisy does not go unnoticed.

If any of this is true then why hasn't he been forced to resign? People have been outcast from politics for less so, if he truly was a terrorist sympathiser, then how has he managed to stay in politics for so long? It doesn't make much sense if what you are saying is true.

Then again, your definition of 'terrorist sympathiser' has always been a bit wonky, just because he isn't bloodthirsty and values peace over war doesn't make him a terrorist sympathiser.

[DemolitionRed]

If any of this is true then why hasn't he been forced to resign? People have been outcast from politics for less so, if he truly was a terrorist sympathiser, then how has he managed to stay in politics for so long? It doesn't make much sense if what you are saying is true.

Then again, your definition of 'terrorist sympathiser' has always been a bit wonky, just because he isn't bloodthirsty and values peace over war doesn't make him a terrorist sympathiser.

What you just said is really important in this discussion. There is a difference between a terrorist sympathiser and a person who has sympathy with a cause. The IRA has fought against British rule in Northern Ireland. Ironic as this may sound, when the British army drove into Northern Ireland, it did so to protect the Catholics. The IRA at that time had no popular support and were tiny in number but within a year of the British Army going in, the discontent against British rule had nationalism grow enormously.

The Nationalists/Republicans have always stood for an independent Ireland. The Loyalists/Unionists want to remain part of the UK. What Corbyn is sympathetic to, is an Irish right to unity, independence and freedom like they have in the rest of Ireland. None of us should be fooled into believing all of Northern Ireland want to live in a duplicated bureaucracy with political solutions effectively imposed upon them and the British state.

And you know what I find really alarming... Most of us Brits know little to nothing about Northern Ireland. It was hammered down our throats in school that the IRA were bad and the Unionists were good. Other than that we are told the words of Reginald Maudling when he flew back from a meeting with Unionist politicians and declared to us all what an awful place Northern Ireland is.

[smudgie]

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers - I find that chilling, but then it wasn't their relatives or friends his buddies murdered eh? As long as Corbyn sweet talks them with the dubious promises of a lot more pounds in their pockets, he's their man and they will close their eyes and ears and just refuse to believe or care about so called 'slurs' against His Benevolence. Money certainly does talk and it talks louder than respect for human life - the root of all evil indeed.

Indeed.
Who knew so many could be bought.

[user104658]

Indeed.
Who knew so many could be bought.

Is this the new rhetoric now? That anyone who doesn't vote Tory is greedy and moneygrubbing and just wants more money in their own back pocket? Petty and untrue, is all there really is to say about that. I can't imagine those saying it even believe it, just deliberately trying to be offensive :facepalm:.

[Tom4784]

Is this the new rhetoric now? That anyone who doesn't vote Tory is greedy and moneygrubbing and just wants more money in their own back pocket? Petty and untrue, is all there really is to say about that. I can't imagine those saying it even believe it, just deliberately trying to be offensive :facepalm:.

It's the same deal as Brexit. Anyone who doesn't share the same opinion as Leavers were often branded 'undemocratic' and 'traitors'.

I don't think they realised the irony of it.

[bots]

Given that Corbyn was preaching anti austerity and he was basically handing out £10 notes, people did vote because he was giving out free money. That was the whole platform that he stood on. To suggest anything else is pure denial.

[Kizzy]

Yet another U turn, not a word will be said about this because they are English terrorists who never got any condemnation in the British press, they were only killing Irish Catholics so no need to report that

Amen to that... And still that is not being highlighted in the press, out current govt is a lying, hypocritical, shambles and thank god people have woken up to that!

[user104658]

Given that Corbyn was preaching anti austerity and he was basically handing out £10 notes, people did vote because he was giving out free money. That was the whole platform that he stood on. To suggest anything else is pure denial.

What a gross over-simplification of anti-austerity philosophy :facepalm:

[Kizzy]

Only yours.

Corbyn is well known in N Ireland as an IRA sympathiser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Do you condemn his links to terrorism? His IRA buddies with links to Sinn Fein including their leader McGuiness killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, including women and children.
Much as I dislike the DUP, they are nothing compared to Sinn Fein and their buddies the murderous IRA.

Educate yourself before you pontificate about a country you haven't lived in all your life like I have. Perhaps if you had friends killed by the IRA you wouldn't think Corbyn such a great guy. That great guy spoke at rallies every year commemorating the loss of IRA killers. He makes me sick.

That's a Freudian slip if ever I saw one.

[joeysteele]

What a gross over-simplification of anti-austerity philosophy :facepalm:

Indeed.

[Brillopad]

Corbyn will forever be known as the desperate man that buys votes from the young.

[Vicky.]

If he "was considered a security threat" he wouldn't be in his position. It's as simple as that. Unless you believe the authorities to be incompetent to sitcom-levels.

Well indeed. Its a bit ridiculous isn't it. The right wing papers and apparently most right wing voters can all see that he is a huge threat to the country. But...the authorities ignore it. Yeah, because that would happen :D

Maybe he is on the 3000 people watch list and will be reported if he tries to rent a vehicle :eek:

[Vicky.]

It is so ****ing patronizing to assume the young only voted for 'free sweeties' and stuff. Incredibly patronizing. Almost as if people believe the young cannot see beyond uni fees and stuff. When infact most won't even benefit from that. Unless you class sorting the NHS out, rehiring police officers and such 'freebies' in which case thats rather strange tbh.

The young cannot win tbh. They don't vote 'they cannot be arsed to get out of bed'. They do vote and its just so they can go to uni free and they have been manipulated...

The level of hatred displayed for young people over this election is shocking tbh. These are the people who will be paying our pensions and stuff before long. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

[Tom4784]

It is so ****ing patronizing to assume the young only voted for 'free sweeties' and stuff. Incredibly patronizing. Almost as if people believe the young cannot see beyond uni fees and stuff. When infact most won't even benefit from that. Unless you class sorting the NHS out, rehiring police officers and such 'freebies' in which case thats rather strange tbh.

The young cannot win tbh. They don't vote 'they cannot be arsed to get out of bed'. They do vote and its just so they can go to uni free and they have been manipulated...

The level of hatred displayed for young people over this election is shocking tbh. These are the people who will be paying our pensions and stuff before long. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

****ing PREACH.

[Vicky.]

****ing PREACH.

Well its true. Its going on everywhere now, this hatred of the young as apparently they stopped May getting her majority and have thus purposely ****ed the country?! After people were taking the piss saying young people wouldn't get off their computers or get out of bed to vote...you know, as they are all so lazy and useless...Its so weird.

Youngsters are getting such a bashing everywhere. Accusations of them being easily manipulated, voting Labour for 'likes' and so on. best reply I have seen yet is this, and its so true.

You know it's rare I think ageism truly exists and then I see threads like this. You said young people were too lazy to get off our arses and vote. Election after election, young people are criticised for the lack of engagement in politics. Then we turn out to vote and suddenly we're too naïve to know what we want. We want freebies. Best of all, we're doing it for the social media likes.

Just how ****ing thick do you think we are? This is mumsnet but I'd be surprised if half of the people spouting this ****e know anyone in the 18-30 age range. Too committed to the image of us lurking around council estates with phones we nicked, getting teenage pregnant and defying our ASBOs no doubt.

Unfortunately what you don't realise is that we came of age during 9/11. My peers have been debating and discussing the war on terror, Israel/Palestine, the Arab spring etc since we were just entering high school. Our universities are political hotbeds and genres like grime are bringing these discussions to previously disenfranchised groups such as young black men (see iconic clip of young guy saying he won't vote for TM because "she's clapped. On top of that, her policies are dead." grin ) if you think young people are interested in nothing but the hashtag, I suggest you go out and meet some ****ing young people (plus what's to stop us just saying #votelabour and not even voting? We showed up.)

For most 18-30s we already have paid our tuition fees. Half of us will be paying £9,000 and were too young to even get a vote on that. In my age range there was a leave/remain mix, and those of us who wanted to remain had the very same arguments as 30+. But voting for Corbyn went beyond that. They gave us policies and a man we could believe in. If you think any other Labour Party could have engaged young people across the board I invite you to name them.

Finally, you do a massive disservice to the many young campaigners who did a fantastic job getting out there, campaigning, hitting doorsteps and so on. There was a massive social media coup, and the campaigners helped translate those likes of funny memes into real time votes.

But it's nice to know the generation that raised us has such a low opinion of us. Wow.
Another point is that many of my age range are young teachers and new NHS workers who are unhappy with the direction those services are taking and have voted in opposition to the tory policies, not on some pie in the sky liberalism leftie-ism. Their views echo my mothers who worked for 20+ years in education, always voted labour despite not being very left (think old school WC) and was dismayed by the what the education system was becoming. 18-30 or even 18-25 encompasses students voting in their first election to those of us who are paying back our student loans (so have no personal benefit in fee abolition) and paying into pensions or even with children and mortgages of our own.

But you know, we're lazy when we don't vote and too thick to know what's good for us when we do vote. What a glowing testimonial of the generation your generation raised.


Same person for both obviously.

[Brillopad]

****ing PREACH.

And what were you saying about older voters just recently - something abot them being decrepid.

You have shown a distain for older voters on many occasions. In fact you have shown an unhealthy disdain for the majority of voters calling them stupid and easily led, being the expert on such matters as you seem to think you are.

[Vicky.]

And what were you saying about older voters just recently - something abot them being decrepid.

You have shown a distain for older voters on many occasions. In fact you have shown an unhealthy disdain for the majority of voters calling them stupid and easily led, being the expert on such matters as you seem to think you are.

I have seen so many of your posts in here saying that too. Only directed at labour voters though naturally :D No doubt a young person who voted for May would be fine. Its the other lazy useless bastards that are the problem...why on earth did they drag themselves from their pits to cross a box on a piece of paper :bored: I mean, its only their lives too that being affected by this. They should leave the important stuff to older people as they clearly know nothing (despite a hell of a lot of 'youngsters' knowing a lot more about politics than your average person)

[Tom4784]

And what were you saying about older voters just recently - something abot them being decrepid.

You have shown a distain for older voters on many occasions. In fact you have shown an unhealthy disdain for the majority of voters calling them stupid and easily led, being the expert on such matters as you seem to think you are.

I show disdain for most voters.

I had a valid reason for disliking how the older generations voted since they were swayed by tabloids and a general lack of knowledge outside of what the Tabloids told them to think. I dislike ignorance, the older generations that supported the Tories despite all valid evidence telling them not to are incredibly ignorant.

The Younger generations are more likely to be informed simply because they aren't slaves to the tabloids, the internet is a better source of information and most young voters are likely to use it as opposed to traditional media.

Another attempt to drag me has failed, you should stop trying at this point.

[Jack_]

Yeah don't be silly Vicky, young people should just continue to not vote (and be berated for that) so that we can be pummelled by the Tories, have student fees raised, maintenance grants scrapped, universities given free reign to charge what they like based on whimsical student feedback surveys and a backwards ranking system, schools having to collect money for resources from parents at school gates, being decimated by academisation and on the brink of closure, housing benefit for under 25s cut so we struggle to leave home, struggling to find any kind of secure or full-time work (whilst the government massages employment statistics to make it look like they're solving a crisis!), not being paid enough to cover essentials, having estate agents take the ****ing piss out of students with rip-off admin fees and the like, have an NHS which we will be the main beneficiaries of continue to be dismantled and sold off to the highest bidder, need I go on? How dare we care about any of this! We're just naive ****ing idiots, we must swallow the neoliberal lies about trickle down economics, cause we're all in this together aren't we! The Tories are going to save the country! Brexit is gonna Take Back Control from Those Nasty Immigrants! We must accept what we are told and not question anything - Theresa May is our Dear Leader and she knows best! There is no magic money tree...not even in the Cayman Islands for the Tories and their rich cronies! Rule ****in' Britannia! :cheer2:

[Vicky.]

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list :D

[Brillopad]

I show disdain for most voters.

I had a valid reason for disliking how the older generations voted since they were swayed by tabloids and a general lack of knowledge outside of what the Tabloids told them to think. I dislike ignorance, the older generations that supported the Tories despite all valid evidence telling them not to are incredibly ignorant.

The Younger generations are more likely to be informed simply because they aren't slaves to the tabloids, the internet is a better source of information and most young voters are likely to use it as opposed to traditional media.

Another attempt to drag me has failed, you should stop trying at this point.

The internet is just like any other media outlet with good and bad sources of information so that really makes little sense.

And let's not keep trying to make it personal - it isn't. If I see a post I want to respond to I do, just like you and anyone else.

[Jack_]

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list :D

:joker: :joker:

[jet]

I'd like to address a few points you have made here in particular:

The Nationalists/Republicans have always stood for an independent Ireland. The Loyalists/Unionists want to remain part of the UK.

Not true. Very many Catholics do not want a United Ireland. We have it too good as members of the UK economically. The Irish Republic couldn't afford us. They have enough economic troubles of their own.


There is a difference between a terrorist sympathiser and a person who has sympathy with a cause. The IRA has fought against British rule in Northern Ireland......
What Corbyn is sympathetic to, is an Irish right to unity, independence and freedom like they have in the rest of Ireland.

Do you not believe in a democratic process, DR? The citizens of N.Ireland will have a United Ireland when they vote democratically for it, they have always had that choice. To date, the majority of N.Irish citizens do not want a United Ireland and that is why we are still part of the UK.

Corbyn, like the IRA, doesn't believe in democracy and the ballot box for N.Ireland and that is why he was sympathetic to the IRA trying to achieve what the majority didn't want by bombing and killing their way out.
When eventually they realised violence was never going to achieve their goal, they entered into Good Friday Agreement with the Unionists.

.



[/QUOTE]

[DemolitionRed]

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list :D

Love it!!

[Tom4784]

The internet is just like any other media outlet with good and bad sources of information so that really makes little sense.

And let's not keep trying to make it personal - it isn't. If I see a post I want to respond to I do, just like you and anyone else.

You constantly make personal snipes at anyone who disagrees with you so you can drop that victim act right now because it won't wash with anyone.

The Internet is a more valuable source of information because it supports all views and opinions, you can't get an accurate picture of what's happening just from reading the tabloids because they all have the same agenda and they push it hard with biased reporting.

It's easy enough to type in 'general election 2017' and get a wider range of opinions and news stories that are less likely to be biased, take a few articles from different websites and you're more likely to get the real picture rather than relying on the rampant character assassination that takes place in the tabloids.

Print media is a relic of the older generations, the younger generations aren't uninformed, they just aren't as influenced by trashy tabloids.

[Tom4784]

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list :D

He's whatever his haters want him to be tbh whether it makes sense or not.

[smudgie]

Is this the new rhetoric now? That anyone who doesn't vote Tory is greedy and moneygrubbing and just wants more money in their own back pocket? Petty and untrue, is all there really is to say about that. I can't imagine those saying it even believe it, just deliberately trying to be offensive :facepalm:.

I never go out of my way to be offensive TS, life is too short.
I do however believe a lot of people have been taken in by all the freebies on offer.
Young, old, rich and poor.

[jet]

He's whatever his haters want him to be tbh whether it makes sense or not.

...and whatever his lovers want him to be despite corroborating evidence of his IRA 'love - in' from ample and different sources that not one person has admitted researching, commented on or discussed despite a few of those links provided. It seems like a case of 'if I don't like what I read, it can't be true'.

[Tom4784]

...and whatever his lovers want him to be despite corroborating evidence of his IRA 'love - in' from ample and different sources that not one person has admitted researching, commented on or discussed despite a few of those links provided. It seems like a case of 'if I don't like what I read, it can't be true'.

Okay, say what you are saying is correct. Why is he still in power? MPs have been forced to resign for less so why and how has he managed to remain as leader of the labour party if he is a terrorist sympathiser? It makes no sense.

With the amount of enemies he has in the labour party, they'd jump for a chance to remove him using this **** but they haven't. Why?

[James]

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list :D

He's a pacifist when it comes to Britain (Edit: and America). Other countries and organisations, not so much.

[jet]

Okay, say what you are saying is correct. Why is he still in power? MPs have been forced to resign for less so why and how has he managed to remain as leader of the labour party if he is a terrorist sympathiser? It makes no sense.

With the amount of enemies he has in the labour party, they'd jump for a chance to remove him using this **** but they haven't. Why?


The answer to that imo is who really cares if he supported the IRA during their murderous campaign in N.Ireland, because who really cares about what happened in N.Ireland anymore if they ever did? And why should you, I suppose? It's human nature to care more about what actually comes to your own front door and I know the UK mainland got a taste of that too but by God nothing like the carnage we endured and we are left to still visit the graves of those we loved and mourn murdered by the buddies he supported all these years down the line.

The Good Friday Agreement seen the release of terrorists - given a free pardon despite their crimes and Corbyn's part in supporting them has been wiped out along with their life sentences - some of them swapping prison life for careers as Sinn Finn politicians which has been tolerated as acceptable by many, so why not Corbyn, who never actually murdered anyone himself?

The thought of Corbyn becoming PM makes me feel sick to my stomach. I can understand why it isn't the same for the main UK, but at least read up on him and be aware that he has a shady past - and maybe he's changed, in fairness I can't rule that out either. But I'll always detest him for personal reasons as do many here in N. Ireland.

Belfast, N.Ireland hasn't forgotten -

By Ed Curran
June 2 2017

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2017/comment/jeremy-corbyns-past-views-on-conflict-in-northern-ireland-leave-many-questions-to-be-answered-35780405.html

The Manchester massacre has evoked embittered memories of the IRA’s bombing campaign on the British mainland. Comparisons are made between last week’s no-warning outrage and the IRA’s destruction of central Manchester in 1996 and the bombings in other English cities, such as Birmingham, Warrington and London between the 1970s and 1990s.



In the midst of the general election campaign, one man in particular, Jeremy Corbyn, remains in the firing line of public opinion and the media over his past allegiances with militant Irish republicanism and unashamed support for a united Ireland.

Never mind his sense of total outrage now about the suicide bombing in Manchester, where did his sympathies and loyalties rest when those earlier IRA attacks took place?

What pain did he experience during more than 70 occasions when he was in the company of Sinn Fein and pro-republican groups during and at the height of the IRA’s violence?

Where was his mind when he stood in protest outside the Old Bailey shortly after the Brighton bombing which targeted Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet?

Was he experiencing the same depth of shock and rejection of terror as he has done now, when he protested at the trial of Patrick Magee, the Brighton bomber, and was placed under arrest?

Did he feel the same as he does now when he outraged British public opinion by inviting two former IRA prisoners as his guests at Westminster in 1984, in the aftermath of the bombing?

He now says: “I condemn all bombing. It is not a good idea and it is terrible what happened.”

Did he tell that to Gerry Adams in the 1980s? Or did he share such thoughts with his close friend, Diane Abbott, who in 1984 was quoted as saying: “Ireland is our struggle and every defeat of the British State a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

Or what of his attitude towards his choice for Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell, who was forced to apologise abjectly for this statement at a republican event only four years ago: “It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and the sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands which brought Britain to the negotiating table.

“The peace we have now is due to the actions of the IRA. Because of the bravery of IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.”

Time blurs the memory but still cannot erase the pain of the thousands who suffered here and elsewhere at the hands of those whom Mr McDonnell wished to honour.

The weight of evidence about the Corbynite sympathy for Sinn Fein and the IRA, during the latter’s terrorism in Britain, is so extensive and emphatically damning, that it cannot be brushed aside by a short statement of belated regret.

A further indictment is the one-sidedness of the Corbynites — their lack of contact with unionists, with victims of the IRA, their absence of sympathy for the security forces in Northern Ireland and willingness to accept Sinn Fein at face value irrespective of the brutality of its paramilitary wing.

Though it seems unlikely, we cannot rule out the possibility of another upset at the general election next week to add to that of Donald Trump in the United States and Emmanuel Macron in France. In just over a week, Jeremy Corbyn could be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Diane Abbott could be Her Majesty’s Home Secretary, responsible for homeland security, and John McDonnell could be Chancellor in charge of Britain’s — and Northern Ireland’s — future financial fortunes.

It is understandable that many people deserve the clearest possible statement from Mr Corbyn and his political allies about what they said in the past about terror, their views now and future intentions.

These people cannot continue to evoke any doubts as to where they stood before and now on the use of terror to achieve political ends, be it with regard to dissident republicans in Northern Ireland or suicide bombers in British cities.

Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell can see the embarrassment their old allegiances have caused in the light of the Manchester bombing.

However, too many suspicions remain that Jeremy Corbyn and some of the best Labour friends are being economical with the English language when it comes to reflecting on what they said and did in relation to the Troubles. Sadly there is little or no evidence that they gave much thought for others beyond the militant republican movement.

Mr Corbyn says he did what he did for the peace process and supported the Good Friday Agreement.

What solace did he ever offer to the unionist tradition? Does he really accept the central plank of the Belfast Agreement that people here have the right to decide their own destiny inside or outside the UK despite his unequivocal support for a united Ireland?

He has had no alternative but to row back from his past endeavours on behalf of Sinn Fein. A frenzied media in Britain has not let him off the hook, but for the sake of total clarity and to remove lingering suspicions about his attitude to Northern Ireland, he needs to say more and demonstrate that he has learnt that Ireland has more than one side than militant Irish republicanism.

So Mr Corbyn perhaps you would take this opportunity to answer a few pertinent questions, or if not, to set out more clearly your views on issues which continue to disturb people here.

1) Do you accept that there is a difference between meeting or even negotiating with paramilitary groupings and campaigning for their victory?

2) Do you now support the principle of consent in Northern Ireland — that it is for the citizens of the province alone to decide its constitutional future?

3) Do you now regret campaigning against that principle of consent during the Troubles and demanding an end to what you called ‘British occupation’?

4) During your various associations with Sinn Fein, did you call for an end to IRA violence and issue any condemnations of this violence? Can you point to any report or evidence that you did so?

5) Alongside your various associations with Sinn Fein, what meetings and discussions did you have with unionists and loyalists?

6) In November 1987, shortly after the IRA’s Enniskillen bomb, you signed a parliamentary motion saying that violence and bloodshed in Northern Ireland “stems primarily from the long-standing British occupation of that country”. Is that still your view on the causes of the conflict in the province?

7) Do you believe the current campaign of violence by dissident republican groupings also “stems primarily from the long-standing British occupation of that country”?

8) Have you ever met with the victims of IRA violence, such as those injured in bombs or police widows?

I doubt very much if I am alone in seeking answers to these questions. I hope that in the next few days before the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland go to the polls, you may find time to answer them.

Belfast Telegraph

[Tom4784]

The answer to that imo is who really cares if he supported the IRA during their murderous campaign in N.Ireland, because who really cares about what happened in N.Ireland anymore if they ever did? And why should you, I suppose? It's human nature to care more about what actually comes to your own front door and I know the UK mainland got a taste of that too but by God nothing like the carnage we endured and we are left to still visit the graves of those we loved and mourn murdered by the buddies he supported all these years down the line.

The Good Friday Agreement seen the release of terrorists - given a free pardon despite their crimes and Corbyn's part in supporting them has been wiped out along with their life sentences - some of them swapping prison life for careers as Sinn Finn politicians which has been tolerated as acceptable by many, so why not Corbyn, who never actually murdered anyone himself?

...and who is going to to have the balls to go for Corbyn, given the precarious status of the peace process over the last few years? Who wants to be the politician who pokes the hornets nest and adds more fuel to an already volatile situation? Let sleeping dogs lie, because really, who cares about N. Ireland when we have our own worries?

The thought of Corbyn becoming PM makes me feel sick to my stomach. I can understand why it isn't the same for the main UK, but at least read up on him and be aware that he has a shady past - and maybe he's changed, in fairness I can't rule that out either. But I'll always detest him for personal reasons as do many here in N. Ireland.

Belfast, N.Ireland hasn't forgotten:

Well that's hypocritical, if no one really cared then why are people constantly bringing it up? If it's true, how is he still in power?

There must be no real evidence to support these claims otherwise his enemies would have forced him to resign by now.

[jet]

Well that's hypocritical, if no one really cared then why are people constantly bringing it up? If it's true, how is he still in power?

There must be no real evidence to support these claims otherwise his enemies would have forced him to resign by now.

Not sure if you read my edited post with the link? Can you confirm?

[Tom4784]

Not sure if you read my edited post with the link? Can you confirm?

It doesn't answer my question. If these claims are true then why hasn't it resulted in Jeremy Corbyn being made to resign?

[jet]

It doesn't answer my question. If these claims are true then why hasn't it resulted in Jeremy Corbyn being made to resign?

I tried to give you reasons I think that may be the case, what more do you want? You tell me!

Have you read the other links I have provided detailing his support of the IRA campaign? What is your response to them?

There are several good books, some written by Nationalist writers detailing the Troubles and the peace process in N. Ireland available on Amazon which I have read. Not one of them mentions Corbyn as having any part in the peace process or the Good Friday Agreement.

But I doubt at this point that you will believe anything that you don't hear personally from Corbyns own mouth directly to your ears. As I said previously, if you don't like what you read, it isn't true, so please don't waste my time asking me questions that you don't even have the grace to consider the answers to.

[Tom4784]

I tried to give you reasons I think that may be the case, what more do you want? You tell me!

Have you read the other links I have provided detailing his support of the IRA campaign? What is your response to them?

There are several good books, some written by Nationalist writers detailing the Troubles and the peace process in N. Ireland available on Amazon which I have read. Not one of them mentions Corbyn as having any part in the peace process or the Good Friday Agreement.

But I doubt at this point that you will believe anything that you don't hear personally from Corbyns own mouth directly to your ears. As I said previously, if you don't like what you read, it isn't true, so please don't waste my time asking me questions that you don't even have the grace to consider the answers to.

I asked a simple question, if any of this is true how has he avoided any consequences despite half of his party, the conservatives and basically the entirety of the print media baying for his blood on a daily basis? You can link all the stories you like about Corbyn being an alleged Terrorist Sympathiser but that's not going to change the fact that he hasn't faced any consequences for apparently having these dangerous stances and allies which does more to suggest that the stories are overblown then it does to prove their authenticity.

If all the stories were as they said, Jeremy Corbyn would have been forced out of the party decades ago, nevermind being in contention to run the whole thing.

Until this discrepancy is sorted out then the validity of these stories are in question.

[bots]

I asked a simple question, if any of this is true how has he avoided any consequences despite half of his party, the conservatives and basically the entirety of the print media baying for his blood on a daily basis? You can link all the stories you like about Corbyn being an alleged Terrorist Sympathiser but that's not going to change the fact that he hasn't faced any consequences for apparently having these dangerous stances and allies which does more to suggest that the stories are overblown then it does to prove their authenticity.

If all the stories were as they said, Jeremy Corbyn would have been forced out of the party decades ago, nevermind being in contention to run the whole thing.

Until this discrepancy is sorted out then the validity of these stories are in question.

Denial, pure and simple.This is the thing in a democracy. We had a previous PM that had an affinity with pigs heads, it didn't stop him being PM.

Democracy is great, but it does throw up the possibility of dubious people getting in to positions of power (I won't mention Mr Trrrr :laugh:)

Edit: I believe the reason Corbyn is an option now was because Margaret Beckett felt it would do no real harm to have another option in the leadership contest so seconded his nomination while completely disagreeing with him and his principles.

[Kizzy]

Denial, pure and simple.This is the thing in a democracy. We had a previous PM that had an affinity with pigs heads, it didn't stop him being PM.

Democracy is great, but it does throw up the possibility of dubious people getting in to positions of power (I won't mention Mr Trrrr :laugh:)

Edit: I believe the reason Corbyn is an option now was because Margaret Beckett felt it would do no real harm to have another option in the leadership contest so seconded his nomination while completely disagreeing with him and his principles.

That was a theory banded around by the media that he was a 'joke' candidate. He was in fact just a representative of the left of the party.

[bots]

Denial, pure and simple.This is the thing in a democracy. We had a previous PM that had an affinity with pigs heads, it didn't stop him being PM.

Democracy is great, but it does throw up the possibility of dubious people getting in to positions of power (I won't mention Mr Trrrr :laugh:)

Edit: I believe the reason Corbyn is an option now was because Margaret Beckett felt it would do no real harm to have another option in the leadership contest so seconded his nomination while completely disagreeing with him and his principles.

That was a theory banded around by the media that he was a 'joke' candidate. He was in fact just a representative of the left of the party.

I heard Margaret Beckett herself say it, so I think she would know.

[user104658]

I heard Margaret Beckett herself say it, so I think she would know.

Maybe your ears were slightly muffled by her thighs, and you misheard? :think:

[Kizzy]

I heard Margaret Beckett herself say it, so I think she would know.

The opinion was pushed in the media he was the joke candidate, and it backfired. She may not have agreed with him not many did back then if you recall, however he was nominated, supported and elected.

I'm not sure why you would consider him to be 'dubious'?

[bots]

The opinion was pushed in the media he was the joke candidate, and it backfired. She may not have agreed with him not many did back then if you recall, however he was nominated, supported and elected.

I'm not sure why you would consider him to be 'dubious'?

My point is that he got into the leadership election as a joke candidate to make up the numbers, not because he was considered in any way seriously. However, democracy has a habit of biting back, he was elected leader and the rest is history. That is how dubious people get where they get to, and how dubious history disappears


Ex-Labour Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has described herself as a "moron" for nominating Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership contest.

"At no point did I intend to vote for Jeremy myself - nice as he is - nor advise anyone else to do it," she said.

"We were being urged as MPs to have a field of candidates," she told the BBC.
Ex-adviser to Tony Blair John McTernan had said MPs who "lent" their nominations to Mr Corbyn to "broaden the debate" were "morons".
He made his comment on the BBC's Newsnight on Tuesday.

During an interview with BBC Radio 4's World at One Mrs Beckett was asked if she was, as Mr McTernan put it, a moron for nominating Mr Corbyn. She replied: "I am one of them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33625612

[joeysteele]

The opinion was pushed in the media he was the joke candidate, and it backfired. She may not have agreed with him not many did back then if you recall, however he was nominated, supported and elected.

I'm not sure why you would consider him to be 'dubious'?



She agrees with him more now Kizzy, especially after this electoral advance he has made for Labour.
After all pundits and Con supporters laughing at Labour supporters,calling them deluded and that Labour was dead,heading for its lowest number of seats tally since before the war.

Whatever else,they were the deluded ones not Labour supporters.

[Tom4784]

Denial, pure and simple.This is the thing in a democracy. We had a previous PM that had an affinity with pigs heads, it didn't stop him being PM.

Democracy is great, but it does throw up the possibility of dubious people getting in to positions of power (I won't mention Mr Trrrr :laugh:)

Edit: I believe the reason Corbyn is an option now was because Margaret Beckett felt it would do no real harm to have another option in the leadership contest so seconded his nomination while completely disagreeing with him and his principles.

Okay that makes no sense.

So many people are in open opposition to him and apparently have a mountain of evidence to back up their claims yet NO ONE has pulled the trigger and ended his career? Why is that? Why would people who stand to gain from his dismissal not opt to put those wheels in motion?

All this stuff about Corbyn's past has been a trial by media but nobody has been able to bring up an actual investigation into him? What does that say? He's certainly not powerful enough to bury such a thing with so much scrutiny on him so that tells me that there is simply no tangible proof otherwise he would have been gone by now.

[jet]

Okay that makes no sense.

So many people are in open opposition to him and apparently have a mountain of evidence to back up their claims yet NO ONE has pulled the trigger and ended his career? Why is that? Why would people who stand to gain from his dismissal not opt to put those wheels in motion?

All this stuff about Corbyn's past has been a trial by media but nobody has been able to bring up an actual investigation into him? What does that say? He's certainly not powerful enough to bury such a thing with so much scrutiny on him so that tells me that there is simply no tangible proof otherwise he would have been gone by now.


There was an investigation lasting 2 years by the Telegraph into Corbyn and published in 2015. But I’m predicting you won’t believe a word of it because it’s a Tory paper. Numerous other papers have made their own enquiries going way back and came up with the same links to the IRA and more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Yet Corbyn has never sued one paper in all these years for printing such ‘lies’ about him. Why do you think that is?

Some other Labour MP’s haven’t been squeaky clean when it comes to the IRA…..do they really want to open a hornets nest? There have been rumblings very recently on the news and in the press regarding Corbyns past which could very well blow up if he became PM.
His main cover - up is that he was 'working hard to achieve the peace process' which is a blatant lie. Peace was the last thing on his mind in the 70's when he was doing most of his hanging around with his IRA buddies and giving speeches at their rallies and promoting their cause....and he played no part whatsoever in the eventual peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. Grab a book on it from the Republican perspective (so no - one can cry lies!) and you'll find no mention of Corbyn in any peace talks, ever.

[Tom4784]

There was an investigation lasting 2 years by the Telegraph into Corbyn and published in 2015. But I’m predicting you won’t believe a word of it because it’s a Tory paper. Numerous other papers have made their own enquiries going way back and came up with the same links to the IRA and more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Yet Corbyn has never sued one paper in all these years for printing such ‘lies’ about him. Why do you think that is?

Some other Labour MP’s haven’t been squeaky clean when it comes to the IRA…..do they really want to open a hornets nest? There have been rumblings very recently on the news and in the press regarding Corbyns past which could very well blow up if he became PM.
His main cover - up is that he was 'working hard to achieve the peace process' which is a blatant lie. Peace was the last thing on his mind in the 70's when he was doing most of his hanging around with his IRA buddies and giving speeches at their rallies and promoting their cause....and he played no part whatsoever in the eventual peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. Grab a book on it from the Republican perspective (so no - one can cry lies!) and you'll find no mention of Corbyn in any peace talks, ever.

Still doesn't explain why he's still in power if these reports are viable. Until you can explain why he hasn't been ousted by an official investigation when so many people would want to see him go then I won't believe these reports since a lack of action says they aren't viable.

[user104658]

I'm sorry jet but there's just absolutely nothing in that - or in anything else I've been able to find - which suggests that Corbyn supports or condones any sort of violence by anyone... he has really repeatedly stated over the years that he does not believe war / violence to ever be the answer if anything. To the extent that he has been highly criticised for refusing to say that he would nuke innocent people (unlike May, who stated that she would do it without hesitation).

There appears to be an idea that any association with extreme / violent individuals MUST mean that the person is extreme or violent themselves... but it simply doesn't. There is no indication anywhere that Corbyn would ever condone or allow violent action. Anywhere.

If we're going to go down the route of making assumptions by simple association then - I'm sorry to say - we would have to apply the same to pretty much every high profile politician, making arms deals around the world and having champagne with warmongers.

[jet]

I'm sorry jet but there's just absolutely nothing in that - or in anything else I've been able to find - which suggests that Corbyn supports or condones any sort of violence by anyone... he has really repeatedly stated over the years that he does not believe war / violence to ever be the answer if anything. To the extent that he has been highly criticised for refusing to say that he would nuke innocent people (unlike May, who stated that she would do it without hesitation).

There appears to be an idea that any association with extreme / violent individuals MUST mean that the person is extreme or violent themselves... but it simply doesn't. There is no indication anywhere that Corbyn would ever condone or allow violent action. Anywhere.

If we're going to go down the route of making assumptions by simple association then - I'm sorry to say - we would have to apply the same to pretty much every high profile politician, making arms deals around the world and having champagne with warmongers.



Words fail me. I always had you down as a clued up poster too...

[jet]

I'm sorry jet but there's just absolutely nothing in that - or in anything else I've been able to find - which suggests that Corbyn supports or condones any sort of violence by anyone... he has really repeatedly stated over the years that he does not believe war / violence to ever be the answer if anything. To the extent that he has been highly criticised for refusing to say that he would nuke innocent people (unlike May, who stated that she would do it without hesitation).

There appears to be an idea that any association with extreme / violent individuals MUST mean that the person is extreme or violent themselves... but it simply doesn't. There is no indication anywhere that Corbyn would ever condone or allow violent action. Anywhere.

If we're going to go down the route of making assumptions by simple association then - I'm sorry to say - we would have to apply the same to pretty much every high profile politician, making arms deals around the world and having champagne with warmongers.

I have never said, anywhere, that he is violent himself, but that he has supported those that are is out there for all to see. Except for those who refuse to see it.

[Kizzy]

Words fail me. I always had you down as a clued up poster too...

Could you link to any evidence then to educate us please?

[user104658]

I have never said, anywhere, that he is violent himself, but that he has supported those that are is out there for all to see. Except for those who refuse to see it.

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false :shrug:. I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

[jet]

Could you link to any evidence then to educate us please?

I already have. You can't educate those who don't want to be educated about cuddly ole Jeremy.

[Kizzy]

I already have. You can't educate those who don't want to be educated about cuddly ole Jeremy.

All you have is one article by a right wing paper, what evidence is that?

[joeysteele]

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false :shrug:. I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".


First rate,balanced and totally right post in my view.
Really well said, I've nothing to add to it.

This is the post of this thread for me.

[Vicky.]

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false :shrug:. I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

Indeed.

Also the posting of a telegraph link as 'facts' is a bit...odd.

[jet]

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false :shrug:. I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

The difference is that Corbyn had no political agenda to help bring peace or any other political necessity, he wasn't even an MP in the 70's when he was an outright IRA supporter. I suppose he just spoke at IRA rallies and commemorations for murderers as a fun day out. I suppose he was just an integral part of a hard line paper promoting violence for a wee hobby. I suppose he just buddied up to IRA killers because he was lonely. Yeah yeah...
and how many times do I have to say he had no part in the peace process whatsoever no matter how he tries to spin it.
You are forgetting many here in N.Ireland know of him and his past proclivities, but nobody will believe us, will they? We are all liars, us, the press and the the whole media, and he isn't. End of story. Fine.

[user104658]

The difference is that Corbyn had no political agenda to help bring peace or any other political necessity, he wasn't even an MP in the 70's when he was an outright IRA supporter. I suppose he just spoke at IRA rallies and commemorations for murderers as a fun day out. I suppose he was just an integral part of a hard line paper promoting violence for a wee hobby. I suppose he just buddied up to IRA killers because he was lonely. Yeah yeah...
and how many times do I have to say he had no part in the peace process whatsoever no matter how he tries to spin it.
You are forgetting many here in N.Ireland know of him and his past proclivities, but nobody will believe us, will they? We are all liars, us, the press and the the whole media, and he isn't. End of story. Fine.

I said he overlooked the violence to suit his political agenda; I didn't say anything about him being part of the peace process. My point was that you seem to be of the opinion that other high profile politicians are a better option or haven't been close to similar people over the years (and let's face it, ongoing)... Which just is not true. You have a laser-focus on Corbyn because it specifically concerns NI and that's understandable, but in the process, you seem just as willing to disregard the shady connections that other current politicians have?

[jet]

I said he overlooked the violence to suit his political agenda; I didn't say anything about him being part of the peace process. My point was that you seem to be of the opinion that other high profile politicians are a better option or haven't been close to similar people over the years (and let's face it, ongoing)... Which just is not true. You have a laser-focus on Corbyn because it specifically concerns NI and that's understandable, but in the process, you seem just as willing to disregard the shady connections that other current politicians have?

Oh I could discuss them all right if I had the time....and if I could keep my anger under control which is hard enough just discussing Corbyn.
My current focus is on Corbyn, who could possibly become the future Prime Minister of my country. He actually could get there at some point. If another politician with a shady past of supporting violence comes along and could become my PM, I'll concern myself with them too.

[user104658]

Oh I could discuss them all right if I had the time....and if I could keep my anger under control which is hard enough just discussing Corbyn.
My current focus is on Corbyn, who could possibly become the future Prime Minister of my country. He actually could get there at some point. If another politician with a shady past of supporting violence comes along and could become my PM, I'll concern myself with them too.
Like your current PM Theresa May who openly and proudly supplies the Middle East with weapons for profit?

[jet]

Like your current PM Theresa May who openly and proudly supplies the Middle East with weapons for profit?

Yes, just like her. Cold bitch. She's already PM and and I don't want another one that supports violence, especially one who supported the violence that killed my friends. My bad.

[JTM45]

Selling arms to Saudi Arabia is DIRECTLY supporting violence, death and destruction in parts of the World that are struggling just to exist.
Hypocritical.............but then that what people like May are all about. Denounce violence unless there's money to be made from it, then it's acceptable.:bored:

[DemolitionRed]

Here is an interesting interview by Andrew Neil on Corbyn https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/andrew-neil-interviews-jeremy-corbyn-full-transcript/# Neil directly asks some very pertinent questions and Corbyn answers are convincing. Corbyn openly talks about the accusation by Sean O’Callaghan, that Corbyn had no involvement with Good Friday. Its an interesting interview that we should all read.

Corbyn was watched and investigated by MI5 for 15 years and they came up with zilch.

[Vicky.]

No, I wouldn’t. Isis doesn’t come from nowhere. Isis doesn’t get its money from nowhere. Isis doesn’t get its arms from nowhere. Isis does have a whole lot of connections around the world, financial and others, which I think need to be robustly chased and followed.
Well, that’s a good start for doing it. The other one is to look at the situation in Libya, where you have a lack of government, where you need a stronger presence of UN diplomacy in order to bring about the start of some stronger form of government there. Otherwise you’ve got a problem which isn’t going to go away. And that is a view that I’ve put forward in what was intended to be a thoughtful contribution this morning of how we deal with these things. And I’ll think you’ll find actually quite a lot of the public would not disagree with what I’ve said.

Clarifying the ridiculous 'sit down for tea and biscuits' accusation. War and more killing is not the answer..that much is obvious. So why on earth do people insist on making out Corbyn is a clown for wanting to do something besides bomb innocent people?! Its so weird.

[user104658]

Clarifying the ridiculous 'sit down for tea and biscuits' accusation. War and more killing is not the answer..that much is obvious. So why on earth do people insist on making out Corbyn is a clown for wanting to do something besides bomb innocent people?! Its so weird.
Because people are angry by nature and what most are really looking for is not a solution - it's vengeance.

[jet]

Corbyn was watched and investigated by MI5 for 15 years and they came up with zilch.

And you know this how? Did the MI5 disclose their findings to you?
Ask yourself this: why did they open a file on him in the first place? You can't arrest someone unless they actually commit a crime. Corbyn didn't actually carry out any killings himself, he condoned and lauded those that did.

[Brillopad]

You constantly make personal snipes at anyone who disagrees with you so you can drop that victim act right now because it won't wash with anyone.

The Internet is a more valuable source of information because it supports all views and opinions, you can't get an accurate picture of what's happening just from reading the tabloids because they all have the same agenda and they push it hard with biased reporting.

It's easy enough to type in 'general election 2017' and get a wider range of opinions and news stories that are less likely to be biased, take a few articles from different websites and you're more likely to get the real picture rather than relying on the rampant character assassination that takes place in the tabloids.

Print media is a relic of the older generations, the younger generations aren't uninformed, they just aren't as influenced by trashy tabloids.

I'm not playing a victim, you were the one whittering on about me 'trying to drag you down' - paranoid or what! Yes I have made personal snipes at posts I see as ridiculous, not just yours, so therefore not personal.

You need to re-read your posts as they nearly always make personal snipes at others with a lot of use of ******** - so you talk *****.

[JTM45]

Ask yourself this: why did they open a file on him in the first place?

They had files on and even tapped the phones of people who took part in the picketing and protests that happened when the Miner's Strike was ongoing. It didn't take a lot for MI5 to show interest in you back in the day.

[Vicky.]

And you know this how? Did the MI5 disclose their findings to you?
Ask yourself this: why did they open a file on him in the first place? You can't arrest someone unless they actually commit a crime. Corbyn didn't actually carry out any killings himself, he condoned and lauded those that did.

He was arrested for protesting as far as I am aware.

[Tom4784]

I'm not playing a victim, you were the one whittering on about me 'trying to drag you down' - paranoid or what! Yes I have made personal snipes at posts I see as ridiculous, not just yours, so therefore not personal.

You need to re-read your posts as they nearly always make personal snipes at others with a lot of use of ******** - so you talk *****.

So you have nothing to add to the topic aside from more personal snipes.