Multi-millionaire Ed Sheeran "loves" Corbyn and Socialism

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ed Sheeran says he 'loves' Jeremy Corbyn because the Labour leader 'cares about all classes, races and generations'

Pop star said he 'loved' Labour leader because he 'cares about other people' and ting
Shape of You singer also revealed that he loves 'everything Corbyn is about'
Comes after the pop star received an MBE from Prince Charles earlier this week
He currently has £65 ,000,000 in the bank

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/10/17/4713F29A00000578-5164993-An_honour_Ed_Sheeran_received_an_MBE_at_Buckingham _Palace_in_Lon-a-15_1512928689355.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/09/11/3BFC16BD00000578-4101366-image-a-2_1483960107603.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/31/22/2B0042DD00000578-3181783-image-m-14_1438378525932.jpg


Ed Sheeran has praised Jeremy Corbyn because he believes the Labour leader 'cares about other people'.

The musician revealed in a tell-all interview that while he had never put himself 'behind' Mr Corbyn, he said that he loves 'everything he's about'.

'I have political views, but nobody buys my records going "I wonder what he thinks about politics?" Nobody. People buy my records to put on while they make out,' Sheeran told The Sunday Times Culture Magazine. Also if i did they would not buy my records and make me money.

'I love Corbyn. I love everything Corbyn is about. And I feel people thought that, because I didn't put myself behind him, I wasn't a Corbyn supporter.

In July, the Glastonbury headliner was pushed to reveal how he voted in the 2016 EU referendum.

He told NME: 'I don't get involved in politics. But I will say one thing: I was born a European and I ******ing love being a European. You can probably guess my answer from that.' (even though the referendum was about the EU and nothing about being European geographically)

He also emphasised that was 'a big Corbyn fan' and not a Tory during the same interview.

It comes after the 26-year-old pop star received an MBE from Prince Charles and the Royal Family.


The Yorkshire-born said that while he had not been asked to perform and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding, he would be more than happy to perform.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5164993/Ed-Sheeran-says-loves-Jeremy-Corbyn.html



Do you agree with Sheeran, who has about 4 houses around the world last count, that socialism is the way forward?

[Greg!]

Oh wow who knew rich people were allowed to support anyone other than the Tories! :O I for one am in shock!!

:rolleyes:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh wow who knew rich people weren't allowed to just support the Tories! :O I for one am in shock!!

:rolleyes:

they all do its just the thick ones who dont try and hide it

[Livia]

Someone should tell him how much tax he'll pay under Corbyn, then we can watch as he moves to LA.

[Smithy]

Do I agree that someone who earned every penny is his bank account can support a political leader of their choice? Hmmmm gonna say yes :)

[Livia]

Do I agree that someone who earned every penny is his bank account can support a political leader of their choice? Hmmmm gonna say yes :)

I think it's great, so long as he pays his 98% tax, that's what top rate earners were paying under the Labour government in the 70s, which is when Corbyn was at his Reddest.

[Smithy]

I think it's great, so long as he pays his 98% tax, that's what top rate earners were paying under the Labour government in the 70s, which is when Corbyn was at his Reddest.

But it’s not the 70s, those aren’t the tax rates and ed wasn’t even born then? But thanks for the history lesson :)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do I agree that someone who earned every penny is his bank account can support a political leader of their choice? Hmmmm gonna say yes :)

earned every penny?

do you actually believe that or think anyone who is a socialist does?

[Livia]

But it’s not the 70s, those aren’t the tax rates and ed wasn’t even born then? But thanks for the history lesson :)

No, but you understand the thread of what I was saying, surely. You're an intelligent person.

Those aren't the tax rates now because we've been under a right facing government for years... and I include our time under Blair and Brown in that.

[Tom4784]

Yeah, Brown and Blair were just Tories dressed in red.

[smudgie]

His political leanings make no difference to his talent.
He comes across as a lovely fella, helping young talent etc, maybe he is very charitable with his money as well.

[Crimson Dynamo]

His political leanings make no difference to his talent.
He comes across as a lovely fella, helping young talent etc, maybe he is very charitable with his money as well.

As i always say its easy to be charitable when you have everything you could possibly want, have no bills or debt and literally do not know what to do with it all

i would hope that we all would be incredibly charitable otherwise what a vile person you would be


Im more impressed when i see an old lady put a pound in a cancer tin tbh

[smudgie]

As i always say its easy to be charitable when you have everything you could possibly want, have no bills or debt and literally do not know what to do with it all

i would hope that we all would be incredibly charitable otherwise what a vile person you would be


Im more impressed when i see an old lady put a pound in a cancer tin tbh

It does us all good to be charitable.
I can't fault anyone just because they have loads of money, anymore than I could if they had less.:shrug:

[joeysteele]

His political leanings make no difference to his talent.
He comes across as a lovely fella, helping young talent etc, maybe he is very charitable with his money as well.

I fully agree.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It does us all good to be charitable.
I can't fault anyone just because they have loads of money, anymore than I could if they had less.:shrug:

when you cant pay bills, buy anything nice for yourself, get public transport and canbt heat your home

surely you can see a difference there?

Being charitable should be a given when all of the above are not an issue

not a virtue

[Shaun]

Ed Sheeran? *switches to the Lib Dems*

[smudgie]

when you cant pay bills, buy anything nice for yourself, get public transport and canbt heat your home

surely you can see a difference there?

Being charitable should be a given when all of the above are not an issue

not a virtue

Of course there is a difference between being skint or having money, but if someone that has money gives to charity then I can't fault them.
I don't hold with all this poor people vote labour and toffs vote Tory either.
Surely you vote for the policies or what you think is right at the time.

[Marsh.]

As i always say its easy to be charitable when you have everything you could possibly want, have no bills or debt and literally do not know what to do with it all

i would hope that we all would be incredibly charitable otherwise what a vile person you would be


Im more impressed when i see an old lady put a pound in a cancer tin tbh

But it's all relative and your example is exactly the same.

Yes, it's easier for Ed Sheeran to donate millions to charity, because compared to what he's earning he can more than afford to.

Just as it's easy for that little old lady to done £1, because compared to the money she had she can more than afford to lose just £1.

[arista]

Yeah, Brown and Blair were just Tories dressed in red.


Evil New Labour (Blair /Bush destroying Iraq)
is nothing like Labour now

[Crimson Dynamo]

But it's all relative and your example is exactly the same.

Yes, it's easier for Ed Sheeran to donate millions to charity, because compared to what he's earning he can more than afford to.

Just as it's easy for that little old lady to done £1, because compared to the money she had she can more than afford to lose just £1.

With basic state pension 122 a week she may have all of £10 a week left over as disposable income

so she gives 10% to charity (for example)

the rough equiv of sheeran putting his hand in his wallet and donating 6 million quid

now I am sure he may give money to charity as part of a tax plan and as part of his PR but id wager he aint done that

the point is the little old lady CANT afford to give but she does

[Marsh.]

With basic state pension 122 a week she may have all of £10 a week left over as disposable income

so she gives 10% to charity (for example)

the rough equiv of sheeran putting his hand in his wallet and donating 6 million quid

now I am sure he may give money to charity as part of a tax plan and as part of his PR but id wager he aint done that

the point is the little old lady CANT afford to give but she does

You just described 10 of her good pounds as "disposable income" so she can definitely afford £1. That is the point.

Yes, the equivalent of a few mill for Ed, hence why I said it's all relative. Both are donating their disposable income that it doesn't hurt them to lose.

[Crimson Dynamo]

You just described 10 of her good pounds as "disposable income" so she can definitely afford £1. That is the point.

its a "term" but when its 10 quid its hardly that

one minor set back and she is fckd

[Marsh.]

its a "term" but when its 10 quid its hardly that

one minor set back and she is fckd

Doesn't matter, it's disposable.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Doesn't matter, it's disposable.

I cant wait till you are a little oap women on state pension

oh how I will laugh

or would have laughed



:worry:

[Marsh.]

I cant wait till you are a little oap women on state pension

oh how I will laugh

or would have laughed



:worry:

Stop deflecting.

People give to charity what they can afford, and don't if they can't.
It's all relative.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of your respect for an old lady donating what she can afford and no respect for a millionaire donating what he can afford. :hee: They're both the same.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Stop deflecting.

People give to charity what they can afford, and don't if they can't.
It's all relative.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of your respect for an old lady donating what she can afford and no respect for a millionaire donating what he can afford. :hee: They're both the same.

incorrect. one gives when they cant afford out of simple charity the other gives because he realizes he has to or he will be seen as a dick

and what he gives is irrelevant as its a tiny fraction of his wealth

lets see him donate say £10,000,000 then he should be applauded



massive difference

[Crimson Dynamo]

this is who sheeran "gives" to or "supports"

East Anglia's Children's Hospices
Elton John AIDS Foundation
GRAMMY Foundation (America)
Musicians on Call (America)
ONE Campaign (Africa)

[Marsh.]

incorrect. one gives when they cant afford out of simple charity the other gives because he realizes he has to or he will be seen as a dick

and what he gives is irrelevant as its a tiny fraction of his wealth

lets see him donate say £10,000,000 then he should be applauded



massive difference

Not a massive difference at all. £1 is a tiny fraction of the old lady's "wealth". It's disposable income so she's not giving anything that she can't afford.

But you're refusing to see that very simple point because you don't like Sheeran.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Mentions he donates to charity - he's doing it so he doesn't look like a dick or for attention. Doesn't mention he donates to charity - he's a selfish, rich, elitist arsehole.

Jealousy doesn't suit you Isaiah. :nono:

[Marsh.]

this is who sheeran "gives" to or "supports"

East Anglia's Children's Hospices
Elton John AIDS Foundation
GRAMMY Foundation (America)
Musicians on Call (America)
ONE Campaign (Africa)

So?

Unless you're his accountant you really have no grounds to comment.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not a massive difference at all. £1 is a tiny fraction of the old lady's "wealth". It's disposable income so she's not giving anything that she can't afford.

But you're refusing to see that very simple point because you don't like Sheeran.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Mentions he donates to charity - he's doing it so he doesn't look like a dick or for attention. Doesn't mention he donates to charity - he's a selfish, rich, elitist arsehole.

Jealousy doesn't suit you Isaiah. :nono:

im not sure what you are driving at as all i said was id admire the old lady rather than that ginger **** but if you cant see the difference in the scenario then either you are being deliberately dense or just being dense deliberately

i suspect the later and former..

[DemolitionRed]

[SIZE="5"]

Do you agree with Sheeran, who has about 4 houses around the world last count, that socialism is the way forward?

Yes I agree with Sheeran. He's a guy who understands that Corbyn isn't going to turn us into some Cold War Russia :hee:. He understands the difference between democratic socialism and social democrat... neither btw can be considered Marxist. Understanding that, he knows he gets to keep his millions and can have as many houses as he wants. He's a man with a clue

[Marsh.]

im not sure what you are driving at as all i said was id admire the old lady rather than that ginger **** but if you cant see the difference in the scenario then either you are being deliberately dense or just being dense deliberately

i suspect the later and former..

What I'm driving at is what you just said. Finding some non existent noble act in the old lady and demonising Ed's donations because you don't like him.

Obviously.

"Ginger ****" Stay jealous.

[DemolitionRed]

I think it's great, so long as he pays his 98% tax, that's what top rate earners were paying under the Labour government in the 70s, which is when Corbyn was at his Reddest.

Lets look at what Corbyn was doing in the 70s... politically that is. He had a seat with Haringey Council so he was only involved in local politics, making sure local stuff ran smoothly. He wasn't running, or having anything to do with the treasury.

As for him taking us back to the 70s. Were those the times when you could come through uni debt free and walk straight into a guaranteed a good job? Where they the times when houses only cost 3 times your gross salary? and were those the times when if you were on the lower pay scale, you could rent a council house; a house you could keep for life without having to pay exhorbitant letting fees and worry about being kicked out after a year? Were those the days when a two parent family could afford to have one parent not going to work so they could raise their children? The times when utility bills were kept in line with wages and when people didn't use food banks and even the poor could afford to travel by train?

This is what Corbyn means when he says he wants to take us back to the 70s and its a darn sight better than the Tory's who have taken us back to Victorian times.

[DemolitionRed]

It does us all good to be charitable.
I can't fault anyone just because they have loads of money, anymore than I could if they had less.:shrug:

I agree with this. There are plenty of people who are well off through honest means and they tend to be the most charitable.

I think what LT is trying to suggest is, if we had a Corbyn government, nobody would be wealthy. That the wealthy would have to give back their wealth to the needy and live more humble lives. Of course this is ridiculous but this is the sort of thing Right wing propaganda has been spewing since Corbyn became a 'thing'.

[DemolitionRed]

incorrect. one gives when they cant afford out of simple charity the other gives because he realizes he has to or he will be seen as a dick

and what he gives is irrelevant as its a tiny fraction of his wealth

lets see him donate say £10,000,000 then he should be applauded



massive difference

That sounds suspiciously like a hard line socialist view. I'm baffled by your judgement of the rich LT.

[Alf]

I had to laugh today, I saw a Jeremy Corbyn 2018 annual in Waterstones.

Kizzy is getting that

[Crimson Dynamo]

That sounds suspiciously like a hard line socialist view. I'm baffled by your judgement of the rich LT.

should you not be baffled by sheeran?

[Withano]

Ed has correct opinions too sometimes :shrug: your day will come.

[Brillopad]

Lets look at what Corbyn was doing in the 70s... politically that is. He had a seat with Haringey Council so he was only involved in local politics, making sure local stuff ran smoothly. He wasn't running, or having anything to do with the treasury.

As for him taking us back to the 70s. Were those the times when you could come through uni debt free and walk straight into a guaranteed a good job? Where they the times when houses only cost 3 times your gross salary? and were those the times when if you were on the lower pay scale, you could rent a council house; a house you could keep for life without having to pay exhorbitant letting fees and worry about being kicked out after a year? Were those the days when a two parent family could afford to have one parent not going to work so they could raise their children? The times when utility bills were kept in line with wages and when people didn't use food banks and even the poor could afford to travel by train?

This is what Corbyn means when he says he wants to take us back to the 70s and its a darn sight better than the Tory's who have taken us back to Victorian times.

Were you there - doesn’t sound like it. You speak as though going to uni was the norm in the seventies when it wasn’t. Maybe it was in your world but not for the majority. Most people worked their way up into good jobs rather than walking straight into them with their nice free degrees at the taxpayers expense.

Most things worth having don’t come free or easy so why should a uni degree and the accompanying lifestyle be any different. School leavers struggled to get jobs even in London in the seventies so not exactly the free ride you seem to be implying. Just Sounds like those with a sense of entitlement want their nice free uni degrees with all the benefits but none of the pain.

[Brother Leon]

How dare a human being care about other people aswell as themselves regardless of class and wealth. What a shocking turn of events.

[DemolitionRed]

should you not be baffled by sheeran?

Jealousy looks terrible on you and yet you continue to wear it.

[Kizzy]

Lets look at what Corbyn was doing in the 70s... politically that is. He had a seat with Haringey Council so he was only involved in local politics, making sure local stuff ran smoothly. He wasn't running, or having anything to do with the treasury.

As for him taking us back to the 70s. Were those the times when you could come through uni debt free and walk straight into a guaranteed a good job? Where they the times when houses only cost 3 times your gross salary? and were those the times when if you were on the lower pay scale, you could rent a council house; a house you could keep for life without having to pay exhorbitant letting fees and worry about being kicked out after a year? Were those the days when a two parent family could afford to have one parent not going to work so they could raise their children? The times when utility bills were kept in line with wages and when people didn't use food banks and even the poor could afford to travel by train?

This is what Corbyn means when he says he wants to take us back to the 70s and its a darn sight better than the Tory's who have taken us back to Victorian times.
Well said! I'm sick of hearing this 'take us back to the 70s claptrap' it's just anothe media driven mantra that some who are too ignorant will swallow if they aren't clever enough to research the fact that that is utter balls... What was the tory party like in the 70s? Old heath, what a barrel of laughs it was once he got in! predecessor to the milk snatcher and it was downhill from there .

[DemolitionRed]

R1jY5fYjV-U

[Brillopad]

I agree with this. There are plenty of people who are well off through honest means and they tend to be the most charitable.

I think what LT is trying to suggest is, if we had a Corbyn government, nobody would be wealthy. That the wealthy would have to give back their wealth to the needy and live more humble lives. Of course this is ridiculous but this is the sort of thing Right wing propaganda has been spewing since Corbyn became a 'thing'.

More like a fad! And we all know how lasting fads are. Blink and they’re gone.

[Kizzy]

rf8Tfi0uO9U

[Kizzy]

More like a fad! And we all know how lasting fads are. Blink and they’re gone.

Let's hope this tory inspired fascism is a fad then

NKg5HySMrlU

[DemolitionRed]

Since the dawn of the Brexit vote, the Tory party really have flirted with fascism but they have been showing fascist tendencies since 2010. It was the novelist Michael Rosen who warned us a few years back, "“fascism arrives as your friend” and not in “fancy dress”.

Fascism: I sometimes fear...

I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.

Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...

It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, wars and persecution."

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/fascism-i-sometimes-fear.html

[Jase.]

"People buy my records to put on while they make out"

excuse me?

[Brillopad]

Yes I agree with Sheeran. He's a guy who understands that Corbyn isn't going to turn us into some Cold War Russia :hee:. He understands the difference between democratic socialism and social democrat... neither btw can be considered Marxist. Understanding that, he knows he gets to keep his millions and can have as many houses as he wants. He's a man with a clue

He is a pop singer - not an economist or a political expert. Let’s Get things into perspective shall we!

[Brillopad]

Since the dawn of the Brexit vote, the Tory party really have flirted with fascism but they have been showing fascist tendencies since 2010. It was the novelist Michael Rosen who warned us a few years back, "“fascism arrives as your friend” and not in “fancy dress”.

Fascism: I sometimes fear...

I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.

Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...

It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, wars and persecution."

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/fascism-i-sometimes-fear.html

Sounds just like Corbyn and his cronies - you do get that don’t you! :rolleyes:

[Brillopad]

Let's hope this tory inspired fascism is a fad then

NKg5HySMrlU

:joker::joker::joker:

[DemolitionRed]

They borrow from fascism and if you don't understand that, then you simply have no idea about what fascism is or how it can be implemented into a society.

Nobody knows if Corbyn is lying... yet. What we do know is, the Tory party have used neoliberal policies in a nihilistic fashion.

https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/13/neoliberalism-is-a-species-of-fascism/

[Crimson Dynamo]

the thread is about Ed Sheeran not "the Tories"

please keep on topic

[Brillopad]

They borrow from fascism and if you don't understand that, then you simply have no idea about what fascism is or how it can be implemented into a society.

Nobody knows if Corbyn is lying... yet. What we do know is, the Tory party have used neoliberal policies in a nihilistic fashion.

https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/13/neoliberalism-is-a-species-of-fascism/

Some would say better the devil you know - such expressions have some logic behind them! Dissatisfaction with something is no valid reason to leap uncontrollably into the unknown, potentially into a black hole of no return. No thanks!

He has too much of a dubious history as do many of his ‘comrades’ and sycophants. Far too many question marks hovering over him for my liking.

This rather child-like belief that many seem to have that he is some kind of Second-coming is just desperation from some and blatant manipulation from others and why those more recently out of nappies than others are being targeted.

The rich are not going to struggle and the poor are not going to suddenly become comfortable and well-off - Politics and fairy tales don’t go hand-hand and there will be no happy ever after for the poor - it’s all a fallacy being sold to the more susceptible.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"But it’s in his reasoning for Corbyn that Sheeran gives us a dread glimpse of the future. Corbyn cares. Not Corbyn is right about tax or Corbyn has better ideas for solving the housing crisis. No, he cares. He emotes in an appealing way. He is for things that are good, against things that are bad, and makes us feel warm and fuzzy. When this is your politics, when good intentions trump policy impact, when the world is made up of the caring and the callous, you will be drawn to the swaggering, contentless radicalism of a Jeremy Corbyn or a John McDonnell. Corbynism is a spasm of moral superiority masquerading as a cult of personality pretending to be a movement for social justice. "

Caring absolves you of the need to show judgement, grace, or moral intelligence. Caring is a licence to behave any way you want to whomever you don’t like.

Just as the hard-right is made up of radicals who have convinced themselves they are traditionalists, the hard-left is home to conservatives who believe themselves to be subversives. Look how they flirt with the symbols and rhetoric of 20th-century totalitarianism. Jeremy Corbyn is not so much a leader as a comforting figure of righteous inertia. He doesn’t challenge, take uncomfortable decisions, take any decisions at all for that matter. He cares and suddenly that’s enough.

:clap2:


Source: Current ish of The Spectator

[Brillopad]

"But it’s in his reasoning for Corbyn that Sheeran gives us a dread glimpse of the future. Corbyn cares. Not Corbyn is right about tax or Corbyn has better ideas for solving the housing crisis. No, he cares. He emotes in an appealing way. He is for things that are good, against things that are bad, and makes us feel warm and fuzzy. When this is your politics, when good intentions trump policy impact, when the world is made up of the caring and the callous, you will be drawn to the swaggering, contentless radicalism of a Jeremy Corbyn or a John McDonnell. Corbynism is a spasm of moral superiority masquerading as a cult of personality pretending to be a movement for social justice. "

Caring absolves you of the need to show judgement, grace, or moral intelligence. Caring is a licence to behave any way you want to whomever you don’t like.

Just as the hard-right is made up of radicals who have convinced themselves they are traditionalists, the hard-left is home to conservatives who believe themselves to be subversives. Look how they flirt with the symbols and rhetoric of 20th-century totalitarianism. Jeremy Corbyn is not so much a leader as a comforting figure of righteous inertia. He doesn’t challenge, take uncomfortable decisions, take any decisions at all for that matter. He cares and suddenly that’s enough.

:clap2:


Source: Current ish of The Spectator

All true.

[Crimson Dynamo]

All true.

yep

sadly so

[Kizzy]

Inertia... renationalisation? That is going to take some locomotion I can tell you! ;)

[jet]

Some would say better the devil you know - such expressions have some logic behind them! Dissatisfaction with something is no valid reason to leap uncontrollably into the unknown, potentially into a black hole of no return. No thanks!

He has too much of a dubious history as do many of his ‘comrades’ and sycophants. Far too many question marks hovering over him for my liking.

This rather child-like belief that many seem to have that he is some kind of Second-coming is just desperation from some and blatant manipulation from others and why those more recently out of nappies than others are being targeted.

The rich are not going to struggle and the poor are not going to suddenly become comfortable and well-off - Politics and fairy tales don’t go hand-hand and there will be no happy ever after for the poor - it’s all a fallacy being sold to the more susceptible.

Great post Brillo. All so true.

[jet]

Caring? :joker: - about the wrong people:

https://order-order.com/2017/06/08/100-times-jeremy-corbyn-sided-
terrorists/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html


How anyone can support this ******* which can only be for their own gain I have no idea.

[Kizzy]

As a diplomat you have to talk to subversives... you can't trot around the globe doling out bombs blowing everyone up! It's not a viable long term strategy.

[jet]

As a diplomat you have to talk to subversives... you can't trot around the globe doling out bombs blowing everyone up! It's not a viable long term strategy.

Diplomat :joker: AND caring. When it comes to Corbyn, people just put their hands over their ears and go la - la - la. He really is a cult. Scary stuff.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/

I guess he could give stirring talks at ISIS rallies, attend the funerals of ISIS terrorists shot by the authorities, be pictured whispering into the ear of an ISIS leader which is all exactly what he did with IRA terrorists and the cult followers would still be denying he was anything but being diplomatic and caring.
He's a wishy washy brown bread and open toed sandal nutter who had no influence whatsoever on any diplomatic talks with anybody, quite the opposite, except in his own head and the heads of his cult followers.
Diplomat. :joker:

[DemolitionRed]

Diplomat :joker: AND caring. When it comes to Corbyn, people just put their hands over their ears and go la - la - la. He really is a cult. Scary stuff.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/

I guess he could give stirring talks at ISIS rallies, attend the funerals of ISIS terrorists shot by the authorities, be pictured whispering into the ear of an ISIS leader which is all exactly what he did with IRA terrorists and the cult followers would still be denying he was anything but being diplomatic and caring.
He's a wishy washy brown bread and open toed sandal nutter who had no influence whatsoever on any diplomatic talks with anybody, quite the opposite, except in his own head and the heads of his cult followers.
Diplomat. :joker:

Now you're just talking ****e

[jet]

Now you're just talking ****e

Anything his followers don't want to believe about Corbyn is ****e. It's why they have the reputation of cultists.

But do tell why it's ****e.

[Toy Soldier]

Some would say better the devil you know - such expressions have some logic behind them! Dissatisfaction with something is no valid reason to leap uncontrollably into the unknown, potentially into a black hole of no return. No thanks!

So... err... like the EU / Brexit, then?

[Crimson Dynamo]

why am i hearing people on the radio call it Breg sit

what the actual fck is wrong with people?

[jet]

Now you're just talking ****e


For the truth, we need to listen to the real architects of the peace process who insist that these men had nothing at all to do with it.

Former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Seamus Mallon, said “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.” Sean O’Callaghan, an ex-IRA terrorist, said Corbyn “played no part ever, at any time, in promoting peace in Northern Ireland”, and any suggestion otherwise is “a cowardly, self-serving lie”.

Cowardly and self-serving: fitting words for Jeremy Corbyn, who has exposed himself as an unscrupulous liar with a warped moral compass.

http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-corbyn-cant-rewrite-his-reprehensible-ira-history

[Chero]

when you cant pay bills, buy anything nice for yourself, get public transport and canbt heat your home

surely you can see a difference there?

Being charitable should be a given when all of the above are not an issue

not a virtue
Wait a minute. Are you talking about the same guy who was homeless a few years ago, but wrote a song to benefit a place for *****s to get help? Surely the homeless shouldn't help people? Oops, now he's a millionaire, he must automatically change all his points of view to reflect the elite. Hmm...

[DemolitionRed]

Anything his followers don't want to believe about Corbyn is ****e. It's why they have the reputation of cultists.

But do tell why it's ****e.



Let’s get one thing straight, Corbyn does not take the side of terrorists, he takes the side of something he considers an injustice he’s a rebel with a cause but he’s a rebel who is always looking at ways to find a peace process and the one thing that’s apparent to those of us who support him is, he’s the person who will stand up and fight against injustice and inequality in our society.

When Cameron was supplying arms to South Africa Corbyn was demonstrating against apartheid. When Blair was all for war in Iraq, Corbyn was on the front line of the million-man march. Justice is a double-edged sword. He doesn’t support terrorism and he doesn’t support ISIS but he is willing to stand up and talk about the cause and effect.

As for his involvement in NI... What Corbyn supported was the end of British rule in Ulster but he did condemn both sides of the conflict and he did put particular pressure on the British government to face up to the Ulster Unionists. It was Brooke, a Tory Minister who started the peace talks in Northern Ireland. Further to that, John Hume, an Irish Social Democrat and Gerry Adams, under a huge amount of scrutiny, sat down and started talking about a ceasefire. In 97 when Blair was elected, Mo Mowlam was asked by the Labour government to go to Northern Ireland and have further talks with Gerry Adams. Mo Mowlam asked Corbyn to accompany her as go between, which is what he did on many occasions. Regardless of what anyone says, Jeremy Corbyn played a key role in bringing about the Good Friday agreement. That had always been Corbyns intension.

Good Friday was, without a doubt, a historic achievement but it would never of come about if people like Corbyn and Mowlam hadn’t been able to sympathize with the Republicans. That though, doesn’t, as the right so jubilantly like to point out, mean that he sympathized with terrorism. He has always stated categorically that he didn’t.

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-corbyn-cant-rewrite-his-reprehensible-ira-history

Oh come on, this is an article written by none other than a board member of 'Conservatives for Liberty'.

If you think such articles are vote losers, think again. The only people interested in this naive style of alarmist journalism are those who wouldn't vote for him anyway.

Whilst it may add fuel to your fire, it just made me laugh.

[jet]

Let’s get one thing straight, Corbyn does not take the side of terrorists, he takes the side of something he considers an injustice he’s a rebel with a cause but he’s a rebel who is always looking at ways to find a peace process and the one thing that’s apparent to those of us who support him is, he’s the person who will stand up and fight against injustice and inequality in our society.

When Cameron was supplying arms to South Africa Corbyn was demonstrating against apartheid. When Blair was all for war in Iraq, Corbyn was on the front line of the million-man march. Justice is a double-edged sword. He doesn’t support terrorism and he doesn’t support ISIS but he is willing to stand up and talk about the cause and effect.

As for his involvement in NI... What Corbyn supported was the end of British rule in Ulster but he did condemn both sides of the conflict and he did put particular pressure on the British government to face up to the Ulster Unionists. It was Brooke, a Tory Minister who started the peace talks in Northern Ireland. Further to that, John Hume, an Irish Social Democrat and Gerry Adams, under a huge amount of scrutiny, sat down and started talking about a ceasefire. In 97 when Blair was elected, Mo Mowlam was asked by the Labour government to go to Northern Ireland and have further talks with Gerry Adams. Mo Mowlam asked Corbyn to accompany her as go between, which is what he did on many occasions. Regardless of what anyone says, Jeremy Corbyn played a key role in bringing about the Good Friday agreement. That had always been Corbyns intension.

Good Friday was, without a doubt, a historic achievement but it would never of come about if people like Corbyn and Mowlam hadn’t been able to sympathize with the Republicans. That though, doesn’t, as the right so jubilantly like to point out, mean that he sympathized with terrorism. He has always stated categorically that he didn’t.

Lets get this straight - Corbyn was an out and out IRA sympathiser who spoke at IRA rallies in the 70's, cheering on their bombing campaign and attending the funerals of IRA terrorists. That is well known here in N. Ireland. I know people who knew him well. He was a ****ty wet little nobody who liked playing and associating with the big boys in their 'struggle', which really means 'murderous campaign'. He was a rebel alright - one whose sympathies lay with those who murdered innocent woman and children in cold blood.

It's a shame you can't get N.Ireland local TV which has talked with politicians from all N.I parties at one time or another this past year about the UK elections and Corbyn and none of them, when the topic comes up - not a single one - have cited Corbyn as being in any way involved, never mind influential in the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. Many of them laugh.
In fact, their perception and knowledge of him is very much the same as the countless articles telling of his rewriting of history and how he was very much an IRA supporter, hanging around them and Gerry Adams like a pathetic fanboy, bigging himself up as having importance.

Even members of Sinn Fein scoff and Nationalist Duputy Minister Seamus Mallon, who at the time stepped into John Humes shoes when he became ill, repeatedly says Corbyn had nothing whatsoever to do with the peace process. The consensus is that Corbyn inserted himself into a complex conflict as nothing more than a irrelevant serial glory seeker, and on one side only - the Republican side.

I admit I laughed out loud when I read that you said he was a 'key figure' in it all. But you have obviously ignored the myriad of articles and essays to the contrary and found a few somewhere that insist he was a key figure, like that fake letter on DS a while back, so that is that.
Perhaps you should post those links that give historic accounts of his great contribution to the Good Friday Agreement - if he was a key figure, as you insist, there must be plenty of them about - I have failed to find any, but surely you just don't take his word for it? There are official accounts listing all the key figures, but the Great Jeremy is nowhere to be found.

The actual people and politicians of N.Ireland who know a hellava lot more about the Troubles and what went on than you possibly can are all wrong and you are right. And for the record, as for your 'history lesson' above on my own small country, you've got some of that wrong and left out some very important people who were involved in the process.

[jet]

Oh come on, this is an article written by none other than a board member of 'Conservatives for Liberty'.

If you think such articles are vote losers, think again. The only people interested in this naive style of alarmist journalism are those who wouldn't vote for him anyway.

Whilst it may add fuel to your fire, it just made me laugh.

A N.I Nationalist Deputy Minister and an IRA man aren't Conservative, are they?
But those that should know are just liars and every word Corbyn utters to cover for his shady past is the gospel truth, right?

Former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Seamus Mallon, said “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.” Sean O’Callaghan, an ex-IRA terrorist, said Corbyn “played no part ever, at any time, in promoting peace in Northern Ireland”, and any suggestion otherwise is “a cowardly, self-serving lie”.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wait a minute. Are you talking about the same guy who was homeless a few years ago, but wrote a song to benefit a place for *****s to get help? Surely the homeless shouldn't help people? Oops, now he's a millionaire, he must automatically change all his points of view to reflect the elite. Hmm...

Lol

Ed Sheeran has never been "homeless" - he admitted that once for a very short time he did not have a place he called home but that this has been taken out of context but that to call him homeless was wrong and a bit insulting to those who really are. He "chose" to be like that but always had a home to go to.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

[DemolitionRed]

Lets get this straight - Corbyn was an out and out IRA sympathiser who spoke at IRA rallies in the 70's, cheering on their bombing campaign and attending the funerals of IRA terrorists. That is well known here in N. Ireland. I know people who knew him well. He was a ****ty wet little nobody who liked playing and associating with the big boys in their 'struggle', which really means 'murderous campaign'. He was a rebel alright - one whose sympathies lay with those who murdered innocent woman and children in cold blood.

It's a shame you can't get N.Ireland local TV which has talked with politicians from all N.I parties at one time or another this past year about the UK elections and Corbyn and none of them, when the topic comes up - not a single one - have cited Corbyn as being in any way involved, never mind influential in the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. Many of them laugh.
In fact, their perception and knowledge of him is very much the same as the countless articles telling of his rewriting of history and how he was very much an IRA supporter, hanging around them and Gerry Adams like a pathetic fanboy, bigging himself up as having importance.

Even members of Sinn Fein scoff and Nationalist Duputy Minister Seamus Mallon, who at the time stepped into John Humes shoes when he became ill, repeatedly says Corbyn had nothing whatsoever to do with the peace process. The consensus is that Corbyn inserted himself into a complex conflict as nothing more than a irrelevant serial glory seeker, and on one side only - the Republican side.

I admit I laughed out loud when I read that you said he was a 'key figure' in it all. But you have obviously ignored the myriad of articles and essays to the contrary and found a few somewhere that insist he was a key figure, like that fake letter on DS a while back, so that is that.
Perhaps you should post those links that give historic accounts of his great contribution to the Good Friday Agreement - if he was a key figure, as you insist, there must be plenty of them about - I have failed to find any, but surely you just don't take his word for it? There are official accounts listing all the key figures, but the Great Jeremy is nowhere to be found.

The actual people and politicians of N.Ireland who know a hellava lot more about the Troubles and what went on than you possibly can are all wrong and you are right. And for the record, as for your 'history lesson' above on my own small country, you've got some of that wrong and left out some very important people who were involved in the process.


Its not all the Irish who think like this though is it? The Irish Republicans generally support Corbyn because they know he was involved in fighting for the Catholic cause. I’m not talking abortion laws, I’m talking community concerns and the Irish reunification and the miscarriages of justice with the Guildford Four and Birmingham six.

You say he was involved in extremism and I say he was involved in meaningful Northern Irish dialogue and advocating a peaceful solution. He didn’t march with Sinn Fein because he was a terrorist supporter, he marched with Sinn Fein because of the endemic bigotry, oppression and persecution of the catholic people.
This wasn’t good against evil, though the Nationalists and the British press would have us think that. There were two evils in that long war; one was the IRA, the other was the British Government.


He has IRA links, He supports Hamas, He is a cheerleader for anti-semites, He has funded Holocaust deniars, He has tolerated anti-semitism in the Labour party, He has been on the payroll of state funded Iranian media

An LSE survey found that 74% of newspaper articles ‘offered either no or a highly distorted account of Corbyn’s views and ideas’ and that only 9% were ‘positive’ in tone. Research carried out at Birkbeck similarly found a strong bias in 'mainstream media coverage'. So how trustworthy are those claims?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luke-davies/re-examining-corbyns-dangerous-friendships
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luke-davies/re-examining-corbyns-dangerous-friendships


I guess you and me will just have to agree to a stalemate.

[jet]

Its not all the Irish who think like this though is it? The Irish Republicans generally support Corbyn because they know he was involved in fighting for the Catholic cause. I’m not talking abortion laws, I’m talking community concerns and the Irish reunification and the miscarriages of justice with the Guildford Four and Birmingham six.

You say he was involved in extremism and I say he was involved in meaningful Northern Irish dialogue and advocating a peaceful solution. He didn’t march with Sinn Fein because he was a terrorist supporter, he marched with Sinn Fein because of the endemic bigotry, oppression and persecution of the catholic people.
This wasn’t good against evil, though the Nationalists and the British press would have us think that. There were two evils in that long war; one was the IRA, the other was the British Government.


He has IRA links, He supports Hamas, He is a cheerleader for anti-semites, He has funded Holocaust deniars, He has tolerated anti-semitism in the Labour party, He has been on the payroll of state funded Iranian media

An LSE survey found that 74% of newspaper articles ‘offered either no or a highly distorted account of Corbyn’s views and ideas’ and that only 9% were ‘positive’ in tone. Research carried out at Birkbeck similarly found a strong bias in 'mainstream media coverage'. So how trustworthy are those claims?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luke-davies/re-examining-corbyns-dangerous-friendships
https://www.opendemocracy.net/luke-davies/re-examining-corbyns-dangerous-friendships


I guess you and me will just have to agree to a stalemate.

The oppression and persecution of Catholics ended centuries ago. I am a N. Irish Catholic and I, nor anyone I know, was deliberately oppressed and certainly not persecuted in our lifetime. The Catholics were poorer than Protestants simply because they refused to practise birth control and many had families of 10 or more children. Protestants had mainly 2 or 3. You can see the problem here with adequate housing, welfare and jobs, can’t you?

Many people have this romantic notion of a poor persecuted people and the IRA as freedom fighters releasing them from their hell on earth. What a load of bollocks. It all may have started off initially as civil rights marches but by the time the IRA became involved it was all about a United Ireland and a long standing historical hatred of the British, nothing more. If it was about a better life for Catholics, why did they bomb the hell out of the place, with not only the tragic loss of life, but the severe loss of jobs, the curtailing of an ordinary everyday life, the serious effects on the economy and tourism, and the fear and mistrust among once peaceful communities that only made things 100% worse than they had ever been?

Why did they bomb public places like bars, restaurants, bus stations etc. were they didn’t know the religion of anyone about to lose their lives or limbs? Catholics, Protestants, any other religion, women, children, babies. And you have the gall to talk about oppression and persecution? If there ever was any it was soon replaced by terror and grief and real poverty.

Another misconception is why how the IRA came to end their campaign. The truth is they knew they were getting nowhere by bombing and murder and never would, their resources were seriously depleted and their recruitment was faltering. They welcomed the peace talks because it was the only way forward.

To put the British Government on a par with the IRA in the N.Ireland conflict in their ‘evilness’ is mind blowingly stupid and suggests a support for terrorists at worst and a wilful ignorance at best.

I know people who seen Corbyn praising the IRA at rallies with their own eyes, not that I expect you to believe that, and I know something else too that I wouldn't put my head on the block to put out there, as much as I'd like to. Scoff all you want, but there it is for what it's worth.

In that article you linked, the author asserts that Corbyn has denounced the actions of the IRA. He's not a very good researcher at all, is he?
On the Steve Nolan show, Corbyn sits there bigging himself up in a collective ‘we’ about the ceasefire, but refuses to answer the question ‘do you condemn what the IRA did’ 5 times.
On the fifth time, he hangs up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POslQtEkCBY

And answer me this: why would N.I politicians and ministers on both sides and even IRA terrorists insist he had nothing to do whatsoever with the peace process but was simply an avid IRA supporter? What would be the point? Are they all secret Conservative fanatics do you think - including the former NI Nationalist Deputy First Minister?

[Kizzy]

The oppression and persecution of Catholics ended centuries ago. I am a N. Irish Catholic and I, nor anyone I know, was deliberately oppressed and certainly not persecuted in our lifetime. The Catholics were poorer than Protestants simply because they refused to practise birth control and many had families of 10 or more children. Protestants had mainly 2 or 3. You can see the problem here with adequate housing, welfare and jobs, can’t you?

Many people have this romantic notion of a poor persecuted people and the IRA as freedom fighters releasing them from their hell on earth. What a load of bollocks. It all may have started off initially as civil rights marches but by the time the IRA became involved it was all about a United Ireland and a long standing historical hatred of the British, nothing more. If it was about a better life for Catholics, why did they bomb the hell out of the place, with not only the tragic loss of life, but the severe loss of jobs, the curtailing of an ordinary everyday life, the serious effects on the economy and tourism, and the fear and mistrust among once peaceful communities that only made things 100% worse than they had ever been?

Why did they bomb public places like bars, restaurants, bus stations etc. were they didn’t know the religion of anyone about to lose their lives or limbs? Catholics, Protestants, any other religion, women, children, babies. And you have the gall to talk about oppression and persecution? If there ever was any it was soon replaced by terror and grief and real poverty.

Another misconception is why how the IRA came to end their campaign. The truth is they knew they were getting nowhere by bombing and murder and never would, their resources were seriously depleted and their recruitment was faltering. They welcomed the peace talks because it was the only way forward.

To put the British Government on a par with the IRA in the N.Ireland conflict in their ‘evilness’ is mind blowingly stupid and suggests a support for terrorists at worst and a wilful ignorance at best.

I know people who seen Corbyn praising the IRA at rallies with their own eyes, not that I expect you to believe that, and I know something else too that I wouldn't put my head on the block to put out there, as much as I'd like to. Scoff all you want, but there it is for what it's worth.

In that article you linked, the author asserts that Corbyn has denounced the actions of the IRA. He's not a very good researcher at all, is he?
On the Steve Nolan show, Corbyn sits there bigging himself up in a collective ‘we’ about the ceasefire, but refuses to answer the question ‘do you condemn what the IRA did’.
On the fifth time, he hangs up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POslQtEkCBY

And answer me this: why would N.I politicians and ministers on both sides and even IRA terrorists insist he had nothing to do whatsoever with the peace process but was simply an avid IRA supporter? What would be the point? Are they all secret Conservative fanatics do you think?

Then why would they need an amnesty? if innocent people weren't jailed and killed then what is there to hide?

https://www.irishnews.com/news/politicalnews/2017/11/21/news/british-government-proposes-troubles-prosecution-amnesty-for-security-force-members-1193265/

[jet]

Then why would they need an amnesty? if innocent people weren't jailed and killed then what is there to hide?

https://www.irishnews.com/news/politicalnews/2017/11/21/news/british-government-proposes-troubles-prosecution-amnesty-for-security-force-members-1193265/

DM puts the British Government and the IRA on a par in their evil in his/her post. Do you agree then?

Are you saying that some British soldiers allegedly abusing their positions on a few occasions and some people being wrongfully jailed are on a par then with the IRA's years of terror, murder and destruction?
In that whole post, all you feel inspired to focus on is a section where I say the British Government were in no way on a par with the evil of the IRA.
...and no comment at all about the linked video in which Corbyn refuses to condemn the actions of the IRA and hangs up when pushed....all very telling indeed.

[Kizzy]

I do think they're on a par yes, how do you define what happened on bloody Sunday?

You can't condemn one terrorist organisation, you must condemn them all and that is precisely what he's done... What's wrong with that?
You can't suggest one murder is worse than another, how is that effecting any peace process condemning one side specifically :/

[jet]

I do think they're on a par yes, how do you define what happened on bloody Sunday?

You can't condemn one terrorist organisation, you must condemn them all and that is precisely what he's done... What's wrong with that?
You can't suggest one murder is worse than another, how is that effecting any peace process condemning one side specifically :/

What happened on Bloody Sunday was a one - off tragedy - a march that went horribly wrong. Do you really think the Para's just said to themselves 'Lets just shoot all these people for s***s and giggles'? No, they claim they were terrified and confused when the march turned ugly and were ordered to fire. It was all a horribly botched mess. That honestly sounds more likely to most sane people. Did that make them right - absolutely not. They killed innocent people and justice should be done.
200 million has been spent on thoroughly investigating the circumstances by order of the British Government. I'd like to know how that puts the Government on a par with the iRA.

The IRA campaign was a deliberate attack that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, including women and children which lasted for many many years. How you can compare the two is beyond any human comprehension or compassion. But IRA apologists use Bloody Sunday to excuse the atrocities time and again. Shame on you.

[DemolitionRed]

DM puts the British Government and the IRA on a par in their evil in his/her post. Do you agree then?

Are you saying that some British soldiers allegedly abusing their positions on a few occasions and some people being wrongfully jailed are on a par then with the IRA's years of terror, murder and destruction?
In that whole post, all you feel inspired to focus on is a section where I say the British Government were in no way on a par with the evil of the IRA.
...and no comment at all about the linked video in which Corbyn refuses to condemn the actions of the IRA and hangs up when pushed....all very telling indeed.

I made it clear that the other side weren't innocent bystanders just wanting a peaceful outcome. There were terrorists on both sides of this war. The UVF didn’t just target the IRA, they targeted family members and civilians too and the British Government knew that UDR weapons were being used to arm the UVF. The government were also aware of the importation of arms for loyalists from South Africa and did nothing and we, in little old England didn't get any real information about that. The UVF were protected by both the government and the media.

In 1969 the loyalists were burning Catholic families out of their homes. Eight died 750 were injured and more than 2,000 Catholics were left homeless.

And lets face it, most of Northern Ireland was never affected by the troubles were they? It was West Belfast that took the brunt, especially when it came to Catholic persecution. You say there weren't, I know Irish Catholics from the troubled areas that would say otherwise.

When we talk about the Irish war, all our venom and hate go to the Irish Republican Party and everyone else who isn’t a member of the IRA are treated like victims. There were many victims on both sides of this conflict.

[Kizzy]

What happened on Bloody Sunday was a one - off tragedy - a march that went horribly wrong. Do you really think the Para's just said to themselves 'Lets just shoot all these people for s***s and giggles'? No, they claim they were terrified and confused when the march turned ugly and were ordered to fire. It was all a horribly botched mess. That honestly sounds more likely to most sane people. Did that make them right - absolutely not. They killed innocent people and justice should be done.
200 million has been spent on thoroughly investigating the circumstances by order of the British Government. I'd like to know how that puts the Government on a par with the iRA.

The IRA campaign was a deliberate attack that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, including women and children which lasted for many many years. How you can compare the two is beyond any human comprehension or compassion. But IRA apologists use Bloody Sunday to excuse the atrocities time and again. Shame on you.

Of course not, neither do I think that they acted against orders.

[jet]

I made it clear that the other side weren't innocent bystanders just wanting a peaceful outcome. There were terrorists on both sides of this war. The UVF didn’t just target the IRA, they targeted family members and civilians too and the British Government knew that UDR weapons were being used to arm the UVF. The government were also aware of the importation of arms for loyalists from South Africa and did nothing and we, in little old England didn't get any real information about that. The UVF were protected by both the government and the media.

In 1969 the loyalists were burning Catholic families out of their homes. Eight died 750 were injured and more than 2,000 Catholics were left homeless.

And lets face it, most of Northern Ireland was never affected by the troubles were they? It was West Belfast that took the brunt, especially when it came to Catholic persecution. You say there weren't, I know Irish Catholics from the troubled areas that would say otherwise.

When we talk about the Irish war, all our venom and hate go to the Irish Republican Party and everyone else who isn’t a member of the IRA are treated like victims. There were many victims on both sides of this conflict.

Who said the other side were innocent bystanders? Who treats the UVF like victims? I abhor and condemn ALL violence. I condemn the IRA. I condemn the UVF.
This discussion is about the IRA and Corbyn.
But for the record, if it wasn't for the IRA, the UVF would never have emerged and the British Army wouldn't have been in N. Ireland for as long as they were. If it wasn't for the IRA continuing reign of terror there would have been few victims. Where did you read the ****e that the UVF were protected by the government and the media? Did one of your impartial persecuted friends from West Belfast tell you that? Good god, get a grip. (I grew up in West Belfast!)

There was a National Health Service and Unemployment benefit for all, regardless of religion. The big Catholic families were a drain on resources, but the poor from both sides got free milk and free school dinners, free school uniforms. In many cases, free television sets, fridges and those twin tub washing machines! We were better treated than many in the mainland UK or the Republic of Ireland. There were area's of discrimination, but no way on earth to the extent that justified a killing spree of massive proportions that murdered the innocent.

I don't know where you get your info from, but ALL of Belfast was affected by the troubles, the West, East and North actually, less so South Belfast. And Derry and many other towns were viciously hit. You are woefully misinformed. And Belfast city centre, where most of the IRA's car bombs killed ordinary people going about their business.

And what about all the arms and money pouring into the IRA's coffers from the halfwits in America who lapped up the poor downtrodden Catholic propaganda fed to them?

You have no idea, have you, of how many Catholics detest, loathe the IRA with a passion? They indiscriminately murdered anyone, regardless of their religion, so many of our own loved ones were lost too, our children and babies at their hands; they spurred on the growth of Loyalist paramilitary groups who murdered our men and put people out of their homes in retaliation. Did anyone really expect the Prods to sit back and take their murderous campaign without doing anything to retaliate? Really? What sort of la la land do you live in?
Because of the IRA and their 30 year quest for a United Ireland most of us didn't even want, Catholics were murdered from both sides.

I am sick and tired of IRA apologists, who point the finger at everyone else to somehow make their atrocities seem more justifiable. The UVF were murderous bastards who murdered our innocent Catholic ADULTS in retaliation, but at least they didn't blow up innocent woman, children and babies on a regular basis. They went to prison just like IRA terrorists did. There was NO favouritism when it came to murderers. Where DO you get this stuff from?
I am sickened beyond words of the callousness of people who fail to condemn the IRA outright in a discussion about them, end of story. Just like Corbyn failed to condemn them in the video I posted and you have ignored. I can see why you admire him so much. Well, you are welcome to him and his great friend and fellow IRA sympathiser Mc'Donnell. Just leave me out of the misinformed and propaganda - fed warped bull****.

[Kizzy]

Who said the other side were innocent bystanders? Who treats the UVF like victims? I abhor and condemn ALL violence. I condemn the IRA. I condemn the UVF.
This discussion is about the IRA and Corbyn.
But for the record, if it wasn't for the IRA, the UVF would never have emerged and the British Army wouldn't have been in N. Ireland for as long as they were. If it wasn't for the IRA continuing reign of terror there would have been few victims. Where did you read the ****e that the UVF were protected by the government and the media? Did one of your impartial persecuted friends from West Belfast tell you that? Good god, get a grip. (I grew up in West Belfast!)

There was a National Health Service and Unemployment benefit for all, regardless of religion. The big Catholic families were a drain on resources, but the poor from both sides got free milk and free school dinners, free school uniforms. In many cases, free television sets, fridges and those twin tub washing machines! We were better treated than many in the mainland UK or the Republic of Ireland. There were area's of discrimination, but no way on earth to the extent that justified a killing spree of massive proportions that murdered the innocent.

I don't know where you get your info from, but ALL of Belfast was affected by the troubles, the West, East and North actually, less so South Belfast. And Derry and many other towns were viciously hit. You are woefully misinformed. And Belfast city centre, where most of the IRA's car bombs killed ordinary people going about their business.

And what about all the arms and money pouring into the IRA's coffers from the halfwits in America who lapped up the poor downtrodden Catholic propaganda fed to them?

You have no idea, have you, of how many Catholics detest, loathe the IRA with a passion? They indiscriminately murdered anyone, regardless of their religion, so many of our own loved ones were lost too, our children and babies at their hands; they spurred on the growth of Loyalist paramilitary groups who murdered our men and put people out of their homes in retaliation. Did anyone really expect the Prods to sit back and take their murderous campaign without doing anything to retaliate? Really? What sort of la la land do you live in?
Because of the IRA and their 30 year quest for a United Ireland most of us didn't even want, Catholics were murdered from both sides.

I am sick and tired of IRA apologists, who point the finger at everyone else to somehow make their atrocities seem more justifiable. The UVF were murderous bastards who murdered our innocent Catholic ADULTS in retaliation, but at least they didn't blow up innocent woman, children and babies on a regular basis. They went to prison just like IRA terrorists did. There was NO favouritism when it came to murderers. Where DO you get this stuff from?
I am sickened beyond words of the callousness of people who fail to condemn the IRA outright in a discussion about them, end of story. Just like Corbyn failed to condemn them in the video I posted and you have ignored. I can see why you admire him so much. Well, you are welcome to him and his great friend and fellow IRA sympathiser Mc'Donnell. Just leave me out of the misinformed and propaganda - fed warped bull****.

From the beginning they did just that, do you think history is different for everyone else?

Just before 8pm on Saturday 4 December, a customer in the bar on Belfast's North Queen Street thought he could smell a stink bomb being let off.

Wreckage of McGurk's pub
Many victims were buried under the wreckage of the pub
It was in fact a UVF bomber lighting the fuse on a 50lb bomb.

Seconds later it exploded almost completely destroying the pub, claiming 15 lives.

It was the UVF's first major atrocity and to this day the biggest loss of life in Belfast in one incident during the Troubles.

Among the dead were the wife and daughter of the bar's owner, Thomas McGurk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6617329.stm

[jet]

From the beginning they did just that, do you think history is different for everyone else?

Just before 8pm on Saturday 4 December, a customer in the bar on Belfast's North Queen Street thought he could smell a stink bomb being let off.

Wreckage of McGurk's pub
Many victims were buried under the wreckage of the pub
It was in fact a UVF bomber lighting the fuse on a 50lb bomb.

Seconds later it exploded almost completely destroying the pub, claiming 15 lives.

It was the UVF's first major atrocity and to this day the biggest loss of life in Belfast in one incident during the Troubles.

Among the dead were the wife and daughter of the bar's owner, Thomas McGurk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6617329.stm

Yes, the bombing history is very different. The part of my post you have highlighted is the truth - The UVF, as awful as they were, did not blow up woman and children on a regular basis, so I don't get the point you are making?

Of course there were a few UVF bombings in the early days that mainly targeted pubs...factually very few indeed, because that is not how they operated.

The McGurks Bar bombing was in retaliation for the Red Lion bar bombing by the IRA in which 3 were killed and many injured. The Red Lion bombing was the first bombing of the troubles.

The IRA carried out thousands of bombings....

The Omagh Bomb.
John Hume said "When you look at the faces of those young children and see the terrible suffering inflicted on their families, you wonder what sort of people are these who can leave those children in the coffin the way they are."

Have a look at this:
The Omagh Bomb
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/omagh/dead.html

And this:
The Claudy Bomb
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/24/victims-claudy-bombings-derry-1972

And this:
Bloody Friday Bomb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/bloody_friday_belfast

And this:
Shankill Chip Shop Bomb
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/shankill-bomb-the-nine-innocent-victims-who-perished-in-ira-attack-29687669.html

And this:
Enniskillen Bomb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/enniskillen_bombing

It also transpired that the IRA had targeted the village of Tullyhommon, 20 miles from Enniskillen, on that Remembrance Sunday. The bomb at Tullyhommon was four times the size of the Enniskillen device. Had it exploded, members of the Boys' and Girls' Brigades would have been caught up in the carnage.

And this:
The Warrington Bomb
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2017/03/17/remembering-the-warrington-bombing-24-years-on/

And this:
The La Mon Hotel Bomb
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/imported/the-story-of-a-bombing-that-still-strikes-terror-28285671.html

And this:
The Harrods Bomb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/december/17/newsid_3327000/3327609.stm

And this:
The Manchester Bomb
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-ira-bomb-20-years-11425324


These examples are just a sample - I could go on and on all day, but I think you get the picture that highlighting the very few UVF bombs (and I have condemned the UVF, as I abhor ALL violence) doesn't stand up to any comparison in the slightest and says quite a lot about your total ignorance of the Troubles and the devastation and death caused on a HUGE scale, by the bombings of the IRA. At least, I HOPE it's ignorance.

And your hero, Corbyn, fails to outright condemn these cold blooded killers, who didn't care WHO they killed in their indiscriminate bombings.

A little reminder:
Corbyn lies about his part in the peace process and refuses to answer the question ‘do you condemn what the IRA did’ 5 times.
On the fifth time, he hangs up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POslQtEkCBY

[Toy Soldier]

A little reminder:
Corbyn lies about his part in the peace process and refuses to answer the question ‘do you condemn what the IRA did’ 5 times.
On the fifth time, he hangs up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POslQtEkCBY

You keep posting this video but it really doesn't demonstrate what you're saying at all. I can accept having issue with what he DOES have to say in it if, for example, you don't believe there is equivalence between the violence on either side but... to say that he doesn't condemn IRA violence in this clip... is simply false.


"My point was always that there had to be a political peace process, to avoid the violence, avoid the bloodshed and avoid the deaths."

"I condemn all bombing - it's not a good idea, it's terrible what happened."

"The whole violence issue was terrible, was appalling."


He quite explicitly does condemn the violence of the troubles and therefore, he does condemn many of the actions of the IRA. Now... I think what you - and importantly here, the interviewer in this video - are looking for is not actually for him to condemn it, but to "admit that it's worse". And while that is a perfectly valid standpoint too, it's not the same as saying he refuses to condemn the violence at all. The interviewer's goal seems to be to push him into making a definitive statement on what he considers to be a very nuanced political minefield so... I personally can't blame him for not being pushed into answering the question. It's an aggressive, bullying interview style designed to prove some sort of point and frankly I'd have hung up on him too. Like I said - holding the stance that the IRA's actions were far worse IS totally valid - but he was clearly not interested in a full discussion at all.

[jet]

You keep posting this video but it really doesn't demonstrate what you're saying at all. I can accept having issue with what he DOES have to say in it if, for example, you don't believe there is equivalence between the violence on either side but... to say that he doesn't condemn IRA violence in this clip... is simply false.


"My point was always that there had to be a political peace process, to avoid the violence, avoid the bloodshed and avoid the deaths."

"I condemn all bombing - it's not a good idea, it's terrible what happened."

"The whole violence issue was terrible, was appalling."


He quite explicitly does condemn the violence of the troubles and therefore, he does condemn many of the actions of the IRA. Now... I think what you - and importantly here, the interviewer in this video - are looking for is not actually for him to condemn it, but to "admit that it's worse". And while that is a perfectly valid standpoint too, it's not the same as saying he refuses to condemn the violence at all. The interviewer's goal seems to be to push him into making a definitive statement on what he considers to be a very nuanced political minefield so... I personally can't blame him for not being pushed into answering the question. It's an aggressive, bullying interview style designed to prove some sort of point and frankly I'd have hung up on him too. Like I said - holding the stance that the IRA's actions were far worse IS totally valid - but he was clearly not interested in a full discussion at all.

No, I did not expect him to say it was worse - the thought never even entered my mind...and that is not what he was being asked.
He faffed around like the usual politician and avoided answering the question 5 times just like I knew he would.
He was asked a simple question - 'do you condemn the actions of the IRA'.

The question was specific, and needed a specific answer. Why? Because he wants to be the next Prime Minister and he has all the IRA stuff surrounding him. It's relevant and important that the distinction should be made.

He could simply have said, 'Of course I condemn the actions of the IRA, like I condemn all bombings'. Ah, now that would be different altogether, don't you think? A crucially important distinction. But he refused to condemn them OUTRIGHT as I knew he would - because as an IRA supporter he doesn't! - and the blanket statement of 'all bombings' was his get out. Then when it gets too hot he hangs up - because he knows the interviewer has his measure. Slimy, lying little coward.

I'm surprised even you fell for it,TS, surely you recognise the dodges of politicians when you hear them? I can't quite believe you really did though.

Just look at the sample of the IRA bombings I posted above - how could ANY right minded person NOT condemn them OUTRIGHT! Only an callous dedicated IRA sympathiser and supporter would not.

[jet]

If Corbyn ever gets seriously near to being PM, the spotlight on his past activities will come to the fore. How could we have a PM who supported and sympathised with the murderers of woman, children and babies, and refused to outright condemn them? A PM who not only attended IRA rallies, but gave speeches spurring them on; who attended the funerals of IRA bombers? Who cynically lied about and bigged up his part in the N.Ireland peace process which he had no influence on and which nobody of any note remembers him as being a part of. It will all come out in the wash, sooner or later. Be careful what you wish for, Corbynites.
Unless you don't give a **** about that and only care about more pennies in your wallets and less in the coffers of the rich, which seems to be the case overall with his supporters. Well, good luck with that, if it comes down to it I hope the boost of more nosh helps salve your conscience that you championed a terrorist hugger. Enjoy your better standard of living (ha ha, do you really think Corbyn will deliver all your dreams!) while children, innocent victims of his cohorts, lie rotting in their graves, their life taken away from them.
You are pathetic, the lot of you. If you want a better life, get it with someone who deserves to have the accolade of giving it to you.

[DemolitionRed]

If it was going to come out in the wash it would of done so by now. People are employed full time to investigate and dig the dirt on people like Corbyn. Where is all this evidence? where are all your sources of proof?

Nobody can make a claim about this sort of thing without proof.

[Toy Soldier]

Thing is Jet, had he said "I condemn IRA actions, as I condemn all bombings"... I'm not sure that WOULD have been enough for many listeners nor for the host who was asking in this case. He would have taken flak for including the caveat. The interviewer was pressing for a "no strings" answer, just a flat "I condemn the IRA" with no nuanced elaboration. His interviewing style was agenda driven and pressing / bullying for a manipulated statement and so that's why I too would have been very tempted to hang up on the guy. Even if in my head I was thinking "well of course I condemn those actions"... I would absolutely not want to cave and "give the guy what he wanted". Frankly... I think he was a bad interviewer and too personally invested in the question to whittle out a real answer.

But yes, he's a politician giving politicians answers and as you know those can't be taken at face value... But that also doesn't mean you can assume the truth either way? I genuinely couldn't tell you either way what his hand-on-heart honest personal feelings about the IRA bombings are because the answers he gives are pure politics... But that's no different from ANY politician. I mean, look at all of the politicians who vehemently denounce middle eastern terrorism by day and then sell them guns and bombs under the table :shrug:.

[Beso]

Eds love will soon diminish as corbyn backers half in numbers as he fails to give labours stance on brexit cause its exactly that...brexit

[jet]

If it was going to come out in the wash it would of done so by now. People are employed full time to investigate and dig the dirt on people like Corbyn. Where is all this evidence? where are all your sources of proof?

Nobody can make a claim about this sort of thing without proof.

Proof of what? Corbyn didn't break any laws. Who he sympathised with and patronised is a huge matter of conscience now. There is more to come though, if a N.Ireland person other than me is willing to break it. I'm not, all I can do in my cowardice is post my absolute disdain and disgust of him.

So...Where is the proof he wasn't involved up to his eyeballs with the IRA?
There is plenty of stuff already out there that says he was, from all different sources - why hasn't he sued yet? - but it is just ignored because people don't want to believe it. The spin from his supporters/or those who just feel like an argument is quite horrific really, what they are willing to brush aside because it comes from the DM, or some other Conservative friendly source (though even some Labour publications have been honest enough) - or worse - they simply don't care. It was so long ago, after all - but all those people are still dead.

Where is the proof he had a big part to play in the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process? (His get - out explanation for his patronage and sympathy with the IRA). There isn't any, because he hadn't. He is telling a bare faced lie, and his supporters all believe HIM, not the N. Ireland politicians, not an ex - IRA man, not the investigative journalists, not even the Nationalist Deputy First Minister, Seamus Mallon, who insists he had no part in it whatsoever, and was an IRA supporter. What reason has the Minister to lie?

But we are all liars, That Minister is a liar, the ex - IRA man is a liar, the politicians are liars, the press are liars, the essayists are liars, the investigative journalists are liars, I'm a liar, all of us in cahoots with each other in some nefarious plot we have planned together. It's all lies, lies, lies, and Corbyn is alone in telling the truth (with NO proof to back up anything he says.)

At this point all I can say is that those who brush aside Corbyn's sympathy and patronage of the indiscriminate murderers of men, women, children and babies can stick him up their buttholes to smell their s***, which is as putrid as his. You are very welcome to each other.

[Alf]

I hear they're eating animals from the zoo's in Venezuela. That's socialism for you.

[jet]

Thing is Jet, had he said "I condemn IRA actions, as I condemn all bombings"... I'm not sure that WOULD have been enough for many listeners nor for the host who was asking in this case. He would have taken flak for including the caveat. The interviewer was pressing for a "no strings" answer, just a flat "I condemn the IRA" with no nuanced elaboration. His interviewing style was agenda driven and pressing / bullying for a manipulated statement and so that's why I too would have been very tempted to hang up on the guy. Even if in my head I was thinking "well of course I condemn those actions"... I would absolutely not want to cave and "give the guy what he wanted". Frankly... I think he was a bad interviewer and too personally invested in the question to whittle out a real answer.

But yes, he's a politician giving politicians answers and as you know those can't be taken at face value... But that also doesn't mean you can assume the truth either way? I genuinely couldn't tell you either way what his hand-on-heart honest personal feelings about the IRA bombings are because the answers he gives are pure politics... But that's no different from ANY politician. I mean, look at all of the politicians who vehemently denounce middle eastern terrorism by day and then sell them guns and bombs under the table :shrug:.

Oh seriously, spare me the spin.
You can go all around the houses to excuse and explain why the poor bullied perfect - one Corbyn didn't answer a simple straightforward question and you know what? - I'm sick of these shallow, excusing, goading replies that show no empathy for the dead -FFS, he was asked if he condemned the IRA bombings - bombings which indiscriminately KILLED MANY YOUNG CHILDREN AND BABIES AS YOUNG AS 9 MONTHS OLD!!!!!
AND HE REFUSED TO DO IT. Do you HEAR - REFUSED.
And you are acting as if it is a game - I wouldn't have answered either the way the big bad interviewer asked ME! Why should I?
But its not any children or babies you know personally or who Perfect Corbyn knew personally who were robbed of their whole life and destroyed their families lives forever so it's fk all hunky dory and glib and spin.
Every time I see that Corbyn ******* smug face I feel ill. I haven't got in in for him for no reason - he's a very unwelcome topical and potent reminder of what he was, what he is and the great person many people believe him to to be NOW, while he continues to lie and avoid and spin. And it is bringing back pain and anguish for so many one hundred fold.
I HATE him.

[Tom4784]

There's very little point in a debate like this if you can't seperate emotion from logic.

[Marsh.]

Ed Sheeran knows how to make a good bop.

[jet]

There's very little point in a debate like this if you can't seperate emotion from logic.

Emotion and logic are not exclusive of each other. Emotions are often brought out more strongly when logic is ignored or suppressed.

I must say I find your coldness exceedingly chilling. As usual.

[Kizzy]

Oh seriously, spare me the spin.
You can go all around the houses to excuse and explain why the poor bullied perfect - one Corbyn didn't answer a simple straightforward question and you know what? - I'm sick of these shallow, excusing, goading replies that show no empathy for the dead -FFS, he was asked if he condemned the IRA bombings - bombings which indiscriminately KILLED MANY YOUNG CHILDREN AND BABIES AS YOUNG AS 9 MONTHS OLD!!!!!
AND HE REFUSED TO DO IT. Do you HEAR - REFUSED.
And you are acting as if it is a game - I wouldn't have answered either the way the big bad interviewer asked ME! Why should I?
But its not any children or babies you know personally or who Perfect Corbyn knew personally who were robbed of their whole life and destroyed their families lives forever so it's fk all hunky dory and glib and spin.
Every time I see that Corbyn ******* smug face I feel ill. I haven't got in in for him for no reason - he's a very unwelcome topical and potent reminder of what he was, what he is and the great person many people believe him to to be NOW, while he continues to lie and avoid and spin. And it is bringing back pain and anguish for so many one hundred fold.
I HATE him.

I think you're being irrational, you've inflated his words to make him sound like he actioned the murders personally... get some perspective for gods sake.

[jet]

I think you're being irrational, you've inflated his words to make him sound like he actioned the murders personally... get some perspective for gods sake.

Okay, so lets talk about the IRA and ISIS.
Lets say he was asked about the recent ISIS attacks on UK cities. If he was asked if he condemned them 5 times and each time he refused to answer (and it wasn't just on this one particular interview) and each time he said 'I condemn ALL bombings' but avoided like the plague mentioning ISIS specifically, what would be your thinking on that -
especially if you had seen him hanging around with ISIS leaders, all those photo - ops, attending their rallies, giving rousing speeches at said rallies and attending funerals of their lost dead in their war against us?

Just like Crobyn did with his IRA buddies. But it doesn't matter now - it was years ago in your mind....I need to get perspective according to you...

When it comes to IRA victims, it's just.... It was only the IRA - pfffff....that was yonks ago....get over it....forget it...forget your dead and get a fk'ing life.

As for your telling me to get PERSPECTIVE - how cold and heartless - I have news for you - NEVER!

And I'm still waiting for the historic proof of his massive involvement in the peace process, which was his excuse for fraternising with murderers....(on one side only, I add, any comment on that, eh?) - without it, his whole house of cards falls down...so YOU get some perspective for God's Sake.
From your previous posts on the history of the N. Ireland troubles, your lack of knowledge is a barrier to any future discussion anyway. You clearly know zilch about it, and probably even less about Corbyn's malevolent part in it.

[Kizzy]

Okay, so lets talk about the IRA and ISIS.
Lets say he was asked about the recent ISIS attacks on UK cities. If he was asked if he condemned them 5 times and each time he refused to answer (and it wasn't just on this one particular interview) and each time he said 'I condemn ALL bombings' but avoided like the plague mentioning ISIS specifically, what would be your thinking on that -
especially if you had seen him hanging around with ISIS leaders, all those photo - ops, attending their rallies, giving rousing speeches at said rallies and attending funerals of their lost dead in their war against us?

Just like Crobyn did with his IRA buddies. But it doesn't matter now - it was years ago in your mind....I need to get perspective according to you...

When it comes to IRA victims, it's just.... It was only the IRA - pfffff....that was yonks ago....get over it....forget it...forget your dead and get a fk'ing life.

As for your telling me to get PERSPECTIVE - how cold and heartless - I have news for you - NEVER!

And I'm still waiting for the historic proof of his massive involvement in the peace process, which was his excuse for fraternising with murderers....(on one side only, I add, any comment on that, eh?) - without it, his whole house of cards falls down...so YOU get some perspective for God's Sake.
From your previous posts on the history of the N. Ireland troubles, your lack of knowledge is a barrier to any future discussion anyway. You clearly know zilch about it, and probably even less about Corbyn's malevolent part in it.

I would think fair play, I condemn all bombings too... I condemn ISIS bombing as well as drone strikes that kill innocent children that are written off as 'collateral damage' ... You don't get to justify one set of murderers as worse than another no matter what side of the religious, cultural or 'in the national interest' package it's peddled in.

We all wanted bombings over there.. we all have infant blood on our hands, Corbyn was one of the only ones in the commons screaming NO! and yet you class him as complicit... he has never advocated violence, ever.

You're delusional, you can't see you're placing blame where none lies and excusing those who state sponsored the annihilation of 100s.

[Mystic Mock]

Oh wow who knew rich people were allowed to support anyone other than the Tories! :O I for one am in shock!!

:rolleyes:

Exactly, you'd almost think that all rich people had to support the Tories and couldn't have their own individual thoughts, just like how a working class person can support the Tories.

Personally I don't know how much Ed Sheeran really "loves" Corbyn's policies, but it's well known that most people in Showbiz are left wing so I don't get why LT seems to be so shocked at a rich person supporting the Labour?

[Mystic Mock]

earned every penny?

do you actually believe that or think anyone who is a socialist does?

He writes his own songs and is a big star in the Music Industry despite not looking conventional in the Music world.

His Music is not my favourite, but he is talented, and has definitely worked for his money.

[Gstar]

The need to label him by his net worth is a bit unnecessary, anyone can support anyone

[jet]

I would think fair play, I condemn all bombings too... I condemn ISIS bombing as well as drone strikes that kill innocent children that are written off as 'collateral damage' ... You don't get to justify one set of murderers as worse than another no matter what side of the religious, cultural or 'in the national interest' package it's peddled in.

We all wanted bombings over there.. we all have infant blood on our hands, Corbyn was one of the only ones in the commons screaming NO! and yet you class him as complicit... he has never advocated violence, ever.

You're delusional, you can't see you're placing blame where none lies and excusing those who state sponsored the annihilation of 100s.

We are talking about Corbyn and the IRA, nothing else....I don't know of any other PM or potential PM who spoke at terrorist rallies praising bombers and attended terrorist funerals and appointed a Shadow Chancellor who did the same.

I suppose you lived in N.Ireland in the 70's too then and knew of him - and the countless reports from many different sources are all lies. Righty - ho.
I suppose you have proof that he was a MASSIVE part of the N.I peace process too and are keeping it to yourself. :laugh:

The only liar pertaining to N.I and the IRA is Corbyn. But every word he utters is taken as the gospel truth. Talk about cults and brainwashing....

People rightly post 'how horrific' when ISIS bombs innocent people in cold blood, yet if Corbyn spoke at one of their rallies or went to the funerals of their dead terrorists as he did with the IRA, according to you that would be acceptable as we are all to blame.

I have heard all the deflection, excuses, spin and Corbyn worship I can stomach.
Bye.

[Kizzy]

We are talking about Corbyn and the IRA, nothing else....I don't know of any other PM or potential PM who spoke at terrorist rallies praising bombers and attended terrorist funerals and appointed a Shadow Chancellor who did the same.

I suppose you lived in N.Ireland in the 70's too then and knew of him - and the countless reports from many different sources are all lies. Righty - ho.
I suppose you have proof that he was a MASSIVE part of the N.I peace process too and are keeping it to yourself. :laugh:

The only liar pertaining to N.I and the IRA is Corbyn. But every word he utters is taken as the gospel truth. Talk about cults and brainwashing....

People rightly post 'how horrific' when ISIS bombs innocent people in cold blood, yet if Corbyn spoke at one of their rallies or went to the funerals of their dead terrorists as he did with the IRA, according to you that would be acceptable as we are all to blame.

I have heard all the deflection, excuses, spin and Corbyn worship I can stomach.
Bye.

Are you having a laugh? what about may shmoozing the saudis, trump or Morawiecki? Your focus is far too narrow either that or you're choosing to ignore the very real offences to human rights in favour of your presumed guilt

[DemolitionRed]

Councillor Maria Gatland Conservative Member for Croham Ward Was a member of the IRA She wrote a book in the early 70s To take up arms in the 1970s.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/maria-gatland-from-terrorist-to-tory-28457193.html

[DemolitionRed]

Corbyn signed a motion condemning the IRA’s violence in 1994.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-ira-violence-1994-general-election-a7761801.html

[jet]

Corbyn signed a motion condemning the IRA’s violence in 1994.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-ira-violence-1994-general-election-a7761801.html

I have posted countless articles from different sources telling of his IRA involvement and all of them are discounted as made up nonsense. You post one that gives no proof of anything - why? Am I supposed to go 'OMG! I've been wrong!'. Come on!

It's so unlikely, as he has great difficulty even today condemning them outright:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiqEyxg9JM0

....and what has it got to do with his IRA involvement in the 70's and 80's, his lies about being a 'massive' part of the peace process, and the fact he refuses even now to condemn the IRA outright without his repeated bumblings of 'I condemn all bombings'.

Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4OkUXwgt1M

And this:
Corbyn on Andrew Neil,
Andrew Neil: "We look at your record, and we can't find any evidence of you urging the IRA to put away it's guns and bombs" - his only defence being 'he was working for peace'. As that was a lie, everything else he says falls down:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj_I3Qs8nbs

There is NO proof anywhere that Corbyn was part of the peace process or had any part to play in the Good friday agreement. Can you at least admit that now? He never even met with the other side in the conflict. And what about him surrounding himself with his IRA supporter friends John McDonnell and Diane Abbot? What have you to say about that? If his apologists still can't see straight through his lies and BS, I feel sorry for them.

[jet]

Councillor Maria Gatland Conservative Member for Croham Ward Was a member of the IRA She wrote a book in the early 70s To take up arms in the 1970s.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/maria-gatland-from-terrorist-to-tory-28457193.html

Never heard of the murderous bitch and thank goodness she hasn't aspirations to be the next PM. Though if she convinced some people they would be better off it probably wouldn't matter that she was an IRA bomber. It's not a big leap from fawning over the likes of Corbyn who fraternised and sympathised with and encouraged bombers to actually turning a blind eye to those that bombed. What do all those dead people matter when you can have the 'promise' of more dosh.
All the and spin and glibness and denial to excuse Corbyn from some on here leads me to that conclusion now.
I really don't think the majority of the public are fooled though, and I very much doubt that when it comes down to the wire that he will ever be PM.

[DemolitionRed]

I have posted countless articles from different sources telling of his IRA involvement and all of them are discounted as made up nonsense. You post one that gives no proof of anything - why? Am I supposed to go 'OMG! I've been wrong!'. Come on!

It's so unlikely, as he has great difficulty even today condemning them outright:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiqEyxg9JM0

....and what has it got to do with his IRA involvement in the 70's and 80's, his lies about being a 'massive' part of the peace process, and the fact he refuses even now to condemn the IRA outright without his repeated bumblings of 'I condemn all bombings'.

Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4OkUXwgt1M

And this:
Corbyn on Andrew Neil,
Andrew Neil: "We look at your record, and we can't find any evidence of you urging the IRA to put away it's guns and bombs" - his only defence being 'he was working for peace'. As that was a lie, everything else he says falls down:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj_I3Qs8nbs

There is NO proof anywhere that Corbyn was part of the peace process or had any part to play in the Good friday agreement. Can you at least admit that now? He never even met with the other side in the conflict. And what about him surrounding himself with his IRA supporter friends John McDonnell and Diane Abbot? What have you to say about that? If his apologists still can't see straight through his lies and BS, I feel sorry for them.

And from your links, you haven't managed to put up any proof of your accusations. Even the national right wing tabloids ignore right wing sites like Guido Fawkes because they know its just meaningless accusations that can be proven otherwise. If you want to put a link up that will have us all sitting up and paying attention, find something substantial and not amateur videos, Guido Fawkes accusations and individual comments.

[Maru]

Stop deflecting.

People give to charity what they can afford, and don't if they can't.
It's all relative.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of your respect for an old lady donating what she can afford and no respect for a millionaire donating what he can afford. :hee: They're both the same.

What are we comparing? Virtuosness or the "meaning" behind the gesture.

I would argue the virtue of charity in general is same. The meaning and sense of thought given behind the gift from someone who has hardly anything to give though is higher because they are so much closer to understanding it's possibilities. People with less have not only a higher appreciation for money, but a higher empathy for those who don't have it.

LT's points are not invalid in terms of her not being able to afford. The fact so many live paycheck to paycheck is why we have so many problems with debt as this is a large part of what drives up benefits usage. If there were no safety net, more people would put away for a rainy day as that would be common sense, but instead many people feel quite comfortable to spend what they earn almost immediately. This is a recipe for disaster, and I think even people that poor would know it by that point, but because there are so much access to welfare/charity (just in case), ppl tend to put off saving rather than to feel increasingly burdened/strangled by their consequences.

If she has a decent safety net (several months of bills saved up), then that partially negatives that example, but usually someone on a fixed income post-retirement has limited financial resources since they are not able to work to make a living and often face higher medical/cost of living due to restrictive diets (so pricier) and are more dependent on others for things like house cleaning or maybe need an in-home care assistant.

On the flip side of the coin (pun not intended), is it really the rich's job to be taking care of the poor? It's not. And just because the person with less is more empathetic doesn't make them more virtuous. So I'd say they are about even on the scale of virtue... but the person with less understands the significance behind it better than someone who literally can make it rain cash without much thought.

Even if you were rags to riches, I think when you no longer living life on the edge of disaster, you do tend to "disconnect" from life's incontrovertible hard truths. Even I'm aware of this change in state in myself from having been raised poor (and physically in bad shape for several decades because of it) to no longer not. I have the luxury now of not having to be burdened with constant worldly concerns, and while I am grateful for it, it has introduced impairments to empathy.

I think you're both making valid points is what I'm getting to.

[Kizzy]

What are we comparing? Virtuosness or the "meaning" behind the gesture.

I would argue the virtue of charity in general is same. The meaning and sense of thought given behind the gift from someone who has hardly anything to give though is higher because they are so much closer to understanding it's possibilities. People with less have not only a higher appreciation for money, but a higher empathy for those who don't have it.

LT's points are not invalid in terms of her not being able to afford. The fact so many live paycheck to paycheck is why we have so many problems with debt as this is a large part of what drives up benefits usage. If there were no safety net, more people would put away for a rainy day as that would be common sense, but instead many people feel quite comfortable to spend what they earn almost immediately. This is a recipe for disaster, and I think even people that poor would know it by that point, but because there are so much access to welfare/charity (just in case), ppl tend to put off saving rather than to feel increasingly burdened/strangled by their consequences.

If she has a decent safety net (several months of bills saved up), then that partially negatives that example, but usually someone on a fixed income post-retirement has limited financial resources since they are not able to work to make a living and often face higher medical/cost of living due to restrictive diets (so pricier) and are more dependent on others for things like house cleaning or maybe need an in-home care assistant.

On the flip side of the coin (pun not intended), is it really the rich's job to be taking care of the poor? It's not. And just because the person with less is more empathetic doesn't make them more virtuous. So I'd say they are about even on the scale of virtue... but the person with less understands the significance behind it better than someone who literally can make it rain cash without much thought.

Even if you were rags to riches, I think when you no longer living life on the edge of disaster, you do tend to "disconnect" from life's incontrovertible hard truths. Even I'm aware of this change in state in myself from having been raised poor (and physically in bad shape for several decades because of it) to no longer not. I have the luxury now of not having to be burdened with constant worldly concerns, and while I am grateful for it, it has introduced impairments to empathy.

I think you're both making valid points is what I'm getting to.

Who's job is it then? In a society that has a social welfare structure paid for via income tax then it is everyones duty to pay ... the rich obviously fall into that and pay proportionately.

What is this inference that the rich are a breed apart who can't contemplate want? Obviously Mr Sheeran can :/

[Crimson Dynamo]

He writes his own songs and is a big star in the Music Industry despite not looking conventional in the Music world.

His Music is not my favourite, but he is talented, and has definitely worked for his money.

worked for his money? :joker:

So by that reckoning a Nurse on say 30K a year has also worked for that amount of money?

what an insult

and hardly very socialist of you

[jet]

And from your links, you haven't managed to put up any proof of your accusations. Even the national right wing tabloids ignore right wing sites like Guido Fawkes because they know its just meaningless accusations that can be proven otherwise. If you want to put a link up that will have us all sitting up and paying attention, find something substantial and not amateur videos, Guido Fawkes accusations and individual comments.

Deflection deflection... you refuse to answer anything I asked and you obviously didn't even watch the Andrew Neil interview. You will never admit any wrongdoing of Corbyn's or his lies concerning the IRA, anything and everything pointing straight at it you block out, you don't seem to have a BS radar at all when it comes to him.
I've also found in your previous posts that you are not very well informed about the N.Ireland troubles.

You would perhaps be surprised to learn how many former Corbyn supporters around the net (even some on here) now have his measure, just listening to the man himself being interviewed about the IRA were all the proof they needed....and they are just the honest ones who admit to it...
You will admit nothing, you won't discuss the content of serious interviews or articles, so there is no point in talking to you any further. I can't believe I ever took you seriously to debate with.