Corbyn’s leftist clique

[Brillopad]

https://news.sky.com/story/blackadder-star-toby-robinson-hits-out-at-jeremy-corbyns-leftist-clique-11210455

Agree with Robinson. The extreme left are taking over the Labour Party and it can only end in tears for all of us if they ever get any real power.

If today’s controlling PC is anything to go by we will be living in a nanny state with not only opposing opinions being completely censored but free thought becoming a thing of the past.

A scary prospect in what is supposed to be the free West. We are supposed be going forwards - but in reality we will be going backwards and swapping one set of victims for another. That is not progress.

[Livia]

The Left is definitely taking over the Labour party. And Momentum will stop at nothing to get Marxists into power. They are aggressive in their campaigning in a way that's not been seen before. They will argue, whether they're right or wrong, and if they're losing they'll accuse you of all sorts of things. They'/re also the noisiest. The Left have no worries about one of their number hanging up a banner that says "hang the Tories" but would squeal like pigs if that message was reversed. You only have to take a look at the language used on this very forum against anyone who's not Labour. It's a worry. We need a strong Labour party... but the more the Left push, the harder people in the centre will push back. We don't need extreme Left or extreme Right... we don't need extreme anything. And I'm sure that at the next General election all those people who don't discuss their vote for fear of being abused by someone who's a bit frantic about it all, will use their vote like they always do.

[joeysteele]

Load of tripe again.

However,even if it was remotely true, I will take the leftist clique over this rotten,hardline,gutless and heartless extreme right wing clique we have in govt.at present and their massively deceitful leader.

[Livia]

Yes, that's the ticket... go for the extreme Left (which is what Corbyn is) over the centre and the right. I would encourage people to do that. Because I doubt Corbyn, despite the efforts of Momentum, will ever get into power.

[Brillopad]

The Left is definitely taking over the Labour party. And Momentum will stop at nothing to get Marxists into power. They are aggressive in their campaigning in a way that's not been seen before. They will argue, whether they're right or wrong, and if they're losing they'll accuse you of all sorts of things. They'/re also the noisiest. The Left have no worries about one of their number hanging up a banner that says "hang the Tories" but would squeal like pigs if that message was reversed. You only have to take a look at the language used on this very forum against anyone who's not Labour. It's a worry. We need a strong Labour party... but the more the Left push, the harder people in the centre will push back. We don't need extreme Left or extreme Right... we don't need extreme anything. And I'm sure that at the next General election all those people who don't discuss their vote for fear of being abused by someone who's a bit frantic about it all, will use their vote like they always do.

I agree Livia. The degree of censorship and the manner in which it is done is disgraceful and not what a country like Britain is supposed to be about. There is a lot of hypocricy with the equivalent of a lynch-mob reaction to Tory failings but nothing but the sweeping-under-the carpet of or support of Labour failings.

I agree we need a stronger more central Labour Party if there is any chance of getting better than what we currently have - which is far from perfect - but the current Labour government would be an even bigger disaster. No extremes should be the name of the game.

[joeysteele]

Yes, that's the ticket... go for the extreme Left (which is what Corbyn is) over the centre and the right. I would encourage people to do that. Because I doubt Corbyn, despite the efforts of Momentum, will ever get into power.

You were indicating almost that he would lead Labour into near oblivion,that Labour was finished under him in the election of June last year too.

I wouldn't be so sure he won't get into power,especially the way this lot are continuing to go as to incompetent,heartless and hardline actions.

If this lot are in any way good govt.then all powers that be need to help the UK.
You were way off the mark in June last year,I think you have another shock to come in the next election too.
I never believed Corbyn could win enough seats to lead a govt,majority or minority one.
He surprised me and I think he well may do again.

His is the only real alternative to this govt. I think you may have to witness it's an alternative voters,and the new voters next time will want too.

[DemolitionRed]

You have to ask the reason behind so many people becoming hard left.

Could it be that Tory style capitalism and corruption has become so corrosive that people are becoming heartily sick of it?

[Brillopad]

You have to ask the reason behind so many people becoming hard left.

Could it be that Tory style capitalism and corruption has become so corrosive that people are becoming heartily sick of it?

Heartily sick of it perhaps - but that is no reason to let desperation cause them to lose sight of the the bigger picture. Swapping one inadequate government for another is no answer and will simply lead to people voting for the lesser of two evils.

People will need to think hard about what Party is most likely to cause the most damage in the long-run. Older voters are more likely to have personal experience of that.

[user104658]

cORbyNs LeFTisT CLiQue!!


...I'm actually not a huge fan these days to be fair. I don't see why we can't have a genuinely, properly, centre oriented party that ALSO has a commitment to fair social policies to support low incomes and disabilities comfortably (meaning, not on a subsistence existence and also not piling pressure and stress onto people who need it least).

Basically we need a party that realises two things:

1) Capitalism isn't ideal and there are huge problems, but it's the only viable system we have and it's so ingrained at this point that we have to accept that there's no way to change the momentum behind it.

2) Capitism WILL INEVITABLY FAIL if we don't accept that some level - an increased level - of socialism is 100% necessary in the foundations of our economy to prop up the upper levels. People need to be able to live full, proper, engaging lives (buy homes, go on holidays, survive without getting into masses of debt) in low wage employment. It is as essential to right wing thinking as it is left.


Until people realise that our only current survival option is, paradoxically, right-wing economics with an increased focus on social policies that increase spending power and general life comfort, then we're kind of ****ed.

No matter how much you want to believe that people should only get to be comfortable / have spending power "later in life once they've werked rly hard" - Right wing economics does not function without consumers. People on low and low-middle incomes MUST have spending power. It's that simple.

But also, no matter how much you want to believe that we can have a fully inclusive and harmonious socialist society - we are WAY past that point and slamming the brakes on the system as it is, will collapse the entire things. Sure everyone can be equal... in that no one will have much of anything.

Basically... in order for there to be people that are doing well, there sadly have to be people who are not doing so well (right wing thinking - Corbyn doesn't like / doesn't get this). At the same time, in order to keep that system functioning, the people who are not doing so well have to be supported in such a way that means that they ARE doing well enough to live normal, comfortable lives (left wing thinking - the Tories do not get this and believe that a system that works for those nearer the top can function on the backs of miserable people indefinitely, which it cannot and will not).


Basically... there's really no one to vote for right now. It's an impossible situation that is potentially unfixable on a UK-wide scale. It COULD work on a smaller scale, e.g. for Scotland, but that ship has pretty much sailed now :whistle:.

[user104658]

Swapping one inadequate government for another is no answer

No, it isn't, but we live in a two-party system so we really don't have any choice but to flip and flop between the two. A one-party state is certainly no answer, either.

[DemolitionRed]

I remember when the left were seen as namsy pamsy tree huggers. Now they are seen as revolutionists that want to take us down the socialist route. How things have changed!

The problem with both parties is, the divide is too big. The left see the right as enemies of the state and vice versa. The Right had its time at being a one party state and I believe if the Left get in at the next election, that too will have its time.

I'm not hard left... anything but. I would just like to see more social services serving its public. Services like the NHS, libraries, the postal service and possibly national rail. I don't want to live in a socialist country anymore than I want to live in a neoliberal style one. I don't want a government that runs its business on the backs of limited companies and I don't want a country that follow Marxist philosophy.
Like you TS, I want good governance and I believe we can get that with Corbyn. I've always followed The Green Party and I find the way they are presently holding hands with Labour, somewhat reassuring because they aren't hard liners

[jet]

You have to ask the reason behind so many people becoming hard left.

Could it be that Tory style capitalism and corruption has become so corrosive that people are becoming heartily sick of it?

So is the answer really to become part of the hard left hysterical outrage led by a Marxist loving Corbyn that is increasingly becoming more strident and intolerant? The young are being encouraged to have contempt for free speech and dissenting opinions, to take offence at the drop of a hat, to view themselves as poor, hard done by victims. They thumb their noses at tradition, see themselves as keyboard warriors and heroic activists.

It will all end in tears, disillusion and disappointment for them because the majority of people in our country are decent, tolerant and have no time for hard done by martyrs who think the world owes them a living and opinions opposing their own should be silenced by hysterical offence - taking.
As others have said, extremism of any kind is not the answer. History has shown that time and again.

[Tom4784]

EVIL LEFTIES :fist:

[Northern Monkey]

It’s scary to watch.No Labour votes from me again while this hard left element hold the power in Labour.
The woman who got most votes Yasmin Dar spoke at a rally last year to celebrate the 38th anniversary of the Iranian Khomeini-ist Islamic revolution.The regime responsible for shooting unarmed protesters.
“We’re here for a celebration.It’s a happy time,this is the third year i’ve been.It’s always in my diary”
Chairman of Labours disputes panel Christine Shawcroft says we should invite Islamic State for cups of tea rather than bombing them.

Ref:Daily Politics BBC2

[Vicky.]

At the rate things are going, I will have to spoil my ballot the next time. There is noone to vote for. Labour is ridiculous, Tories are horrible, Lib dems are useless but they have no chance anyway. Its all a huge ****ing mess.

I cannot believe how much i thought Corbyn was amazing maybe 6 months back. Momentum are ****ing arseholes too. I do agree with a lot of Corbyns politics, but some stuff is extremely important to me and I am polar opposites with him/the party on

[Vicky.]

The Left is definitely taking over the Labour party. And Momentum will stop at nothing to get Marxists into power. They are aggressive in their campaigning in a way that's not been seen before. They will argue, whether they're right or wrong, and if they're losing they'll accuse you of all sorts of things. They'/re also the noisiest. The Left have no worries about one of their number hanging up a banner that says "hang the Tories" but would squeal like pigs if that message was reversed. You only have to take a look at the language used on this very forum against anyone who's not Labour. It's a worry. We need a strong Labour party... but the more the Left push, the harder people in the centre will push back. We don't need extreme Left or extreme Right... we don't need extreme anything. And I'm sure that at the next General election all those people who don't discuss their vote for fear of being abused by someone who's a bit frantic about it all, will use their vote like they always do.

Also this^

[smudgie]

It’s all a bit of a mess really.
If labour split into two separate parties, Labour and Momentum, then a clearer picture would emerge for voters.
Giving voters the option of how far off centre they would like to go.

[Vicky.]

It’s all a bit of a mess really.
If labour split into two separate parties, Labour and Momentum, then a clearer picture would emerge for voters.
Giving voters the option of how far off centre they would like to go.

I would like this.

I want Jess Phillips to lead the new Labour party too. Though that wouldn't happen :laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

I would like this.

I want Jess Phillips to lead the new Labour party too. Though that wouldn't happen :laugh:

God No!
(Jeremy Corbyn all is forgiven :laugh: )

[Vicky.]

God No!
(Jeremy Corbyn all is forgiven :laugh: )

:laugh:

[joeysteele]

I would like this.

I want Jess Phillips to lead the new Labour party too. Though that wouldn't happen :laugh:

If Labour were to split,which the Cons and their hardline supporters would likely love to see.
All you would end up with would be continuous Conservative govt.near without any real organised opposition.

As happened when centrists split Labour in the 80s with forming the SDP, thereby ensuring Margaret Thatchers run of absolute power,with the Cons in govt for an astonishing 18 years.

What's really needed is a change to proper PR as a voting system to curb extremes.
PR is something the Cons would never support however.

[Brillopad]

Many people predicted that Corbyn’s hardline extremist political views would soon come to the fore and that is exactly what is happening. I imagine, that due to the current political climate, he feels the time is right and quite likely with a bit of aggressive pushing from Momentum.

In my opinion Corbyn is either every bit as hardline as much has suggested or he is fast becoming Momentum’s puppet. We have a lot to fear from such a government with long-term consequences.

[DemolitionRed]

So is the answer really to become part of the hard left hysterical outrage led by a Marxist loving Corbyn that is increasingly becoming more strident and intolerant? The young are being encouraged to have contempt for free speech and dissenting opinions, to take offence at the drop of a hat, to view themselves as poor, hard done by victims. They thumb their noses at tradition, see themselves as keyboard warriors and heroic activists.

Before you tar me with a 'hard left' brush stroke, let me make it clear that I couldn't give a flying **** about those rallying against free speech and the like. As far as I'm concerned, the lot of them can take a running jump, hopefully off somewhere high.

I think the likes of such people are monsters who have gone all out to take something positive and turn it into something negative with all their trivial nonsense.

It will all end in tears, disillusion and disappointment for them because the majority of people in our country are decent, tolerant and have no time for hard done by martyrs who think the world owes them a living and opinions opposing their own should be silenced by hysterical offence - taking.
As others have said, extremism of any kind is not the answer. History has shown that time and again.

Do you believe I disagree with that? or did you take some sort of offense about what I said about the Tories?

[jet]

No, I don't believe you are hard left DM.

I was just giving my view on what you said here as to what the alternative is:

Could it be that Tory style capitalism and corruption has become so corrosive that people are becoming heartily sick of it?

I'm very much centrist though I must say the current hard left's behaviour (and the fear of Corbyn as a PM) is pushing me slightly more towards the right.

[DemolitionRed]

Many people predicted that Corbyn’s hardline extremist political views would soon come to the fore and that is exactly what is happening. I imagine, that due to the current political climate, he feels the time is right and quite likely with a bit of aggressive pushing from Momentum.

In my opinion Corbyn is either every bit as hardline as much has suggested or he is fast becoming Momentum’s puppet. We have a lot to fear from such a government with long-term consequences.

Corbyn is about as far from hard left as Britain is from Australia. Where on earth has this suggestion stemmed from? Where and what is the evidence that brings about such accusations? I don't care how many tabloids try to ram this nonsense down my throat. I refuse to swallow it. All these borrowed words like Marxism, Trotskyism, Socialism that’s being bandied against a man who’s most radical principal is to re-nationalize the railways. For ****s sake, he's not going to storm Buckingham Palace or have us all lining up for butter! From where I'm sitting he just wants to curb the sins of capitalism to a point where the vulnerable have more protection. That isn't communism or socialism, its democratic.

This Red Army analogy you keep painting about Corbyn is nonsense. Hit out at the hard liners by all means but Corbyn isn't one of them.

Tony Robinson is a TV personality and like me, a Labour supporter and his views are no less important than the next Labour supporter. The difference is, because of who he is, his views get published in main stream media. It means nothing unless you want it to mean something.

[DemolitionRed]

No, I don't believe you are hard left DM.

I was just giving my view on what you said here as to what the alternative is:



I'm very much centrist though I must say the current hard left's behaviour (and the fear of Corbyn as a PM) is pushing me slightly more towards the right.

But why? why do you fear Corbyn so much?

[jet]

But why? why do you fear Corbyn so much?

I've said to you before, I can't go there.

[joeysteele]

Corbyn is about as far from hard left as Britain is from Australia. Where on earth has this suggestion stemmed from? Where and what is the evidence that brings about such accusations? I don't care how many tabloids try to ram this nonsense down my throat. I refuse to swallow it. All these borrowed words like Marxism, Trotskyism, Socialism that’s being bandied against a man who’s most radical principal is to re-nationalize the railways. For ****s sake, he's not going to storm Buckingham Palace or have us all lining up for butter! From where I'm sitting he just wants to curb the sins of capitalism to a point where the vulnerable have more protection. That isn't communism or socialism, its democratic.

This Red Army analogy you keep painting about Corbyn is nonsense. Hit out at the hard liners by all means but Corbyn isn't one of them.

Tony Robinson is a TV personality and like me, a Labour supporter and his views are no less important than the next Labour supporter. The difference is, because of who he is, his views get published in main stream media. It means nothing unless you want it to mean something.

Superb post.

The thing ignored now is we have an extreme right wing govt in power.
Which is failing miserably.
One whose supporters are allowing it to trample over and add massive undue stress, to the weakest,poorest,sick and disabled.

One of the most sickening and unjust things anyone can do with power is hammer its most vulnerable in society.
Despicable.

Then when anyone speaks out against such vindictiveness and discrimination being enacted against the sick and disabled.
They get called extreme lefties.

Well hey I will happily be an extreme leftie than an extreme right winger,allowing their govt to have the sick and disabled being made to feel further low class citizens.
Rarely if ever saying anything against their govts policies never mind stopping supporting such a cruel hardline govt and PM.

I was brought up with the saying,the only time you should look down on others is when you are helping them back up.
This govt takes away vital support needed for those in dire need,while it protects those who don't need to be.

[Brillopad]

Superb post.

The thing ignored now is we have an extreme right wing govt in power.
Which is failing miserably.
One whose supporters are allowing it to trample over and add massive undue stress, to the weakest,poorest,sick and disabled.

One of the most sickening and unjust things anyone can do with power is hammer its most vulnerable in society.
Despicable.

Then when anyone speaks out against such vindictiveness and discrimination being enacted against the sick and disabled.
They get called extreme lefties.

Well hey I will happily be an extreme leftie than an extreme right winger,allowing their govt to have the sick and disabled being made to feel further low class citizens.
Rarely if ever saying anything against their govts policies never mind stopping supporting such a cruel hardline govt and PM.

I was brought up with the saying,the only time you should look down on others is when you are helping them back up.
This govt takes away vital support needed for those in dire need,while it protects those who don't need to be.

The ones being referred to as extreme lefties are the ones constantly trying to ram their opinions down people’s throats by trying to shut down their opinions - people quick to label those with differing opinions as far right.

Many people on the left genuinely care about the less advantaged, the sick and disabled as do many on the right but to think that all those on the left, especially those at the extreme end, care and none of those on the right do so is ridiculous. Politics is about a hell of a lot more than that.

How simplistic a view to think the left are all good people and the right are all bad people. People vote for a political party for many different reasons - but the core discussion of this thread is the controlling behaviour and shut-down tactics of the PC far left doing their utmost to censor any opinions that don’t tally with their own and the way in which they do that.

[joeysteele]

The ones being referred to as extreme lefties are the ones constantly trying to ram their opinions down people’s throats by trying to shut down their opinions - people quick to label those with differing opinions as far right.

Many people on the left genuinely care about the less advantaged, the sick and disabled as do many on the right but to think that all those on the left, especially those at the extreme end, care and none of those on the right do so is ridiculous. Politics is about a hell of a lot more than that.

How simplistic a view to think the left are all good people and the right are all bad people. People vote for a political party for many different reasons - but the core discussion of this thread is the controlling behaviour and shut-down tactics of the PC far left doing their utmost to censor any opinions that don’t tally with their own and the way in which they do that.

As usual you put your own words in as to what I said which is why I refuse to even try to debate with you.
I never said ALL as in any context.

However continue to do me your biased against me disservice if it gives you that so much pleasure for some reason.
I really don't care a jot what you think, as you with me vice versa too.

[jet]

The doom and gloom is rather overdone. In the United Nations index of World Happiness, in which data is used to implement policies, Britain comes 19th out of 157 countries, beating the likes of Italy, France, China, Japan, Spain.
There was a 4 point rise from 2016 to 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

Another recent survey by the Office for National Statistics found that our levels of happiness, well being and life satisfaction are higher than ever before.
The truth is we live longer, safer and more comfortable lives than any previous generation.
Of course we have our problems, and still will have no matter which gov. is in power, as the past has demonstrated time and time again.

When you look at the desperate poverty, deprivation and lack of freedom that many countries suffer, we are damn lucky. You'd think that our weakest, poorest, sickest, were all left to deliberately starve and die. Our NHS is pretty darn good despite it's problems and the nations health and economic status is improving...despite the fact that we still haven't recovered from the recession. Count your blessings and hope that the upward trends continue.

[user104658]

The doom and gloom is rather overdone.

The thing is though, if you believe this (and it's almost certainly true), you have to believe the flipside, too. I know you personally hate Corbyn and have your reasons... but, if you're asking for logic / reason / levelheadedness... I think we all know that the chances of the UK becoming some sort of hard-left communist dictatorship off the back of Labour winning a General Election are realistically zero. It just isn't going to happen, is it. Huge shifts like that take cataclysmic events and the honest truth is that if you could fast-forward 10 years under Labour, or 10 years under Tory, and have a look... the country "in broad strokes" would look pretty much the same.

[jet]

The thing is though, if you believe this (and it's almost certainly true), you have to believe the flipside, too. I know you personally hate Corbyn and have your reasons... but, if you're asking for logic / reason / levelheadedness... I think we all know that the chances of the UK becoming some sort of hard-left communist dictatorship off the back of Labour winning a General Election are realistically zero. It just isn't going to happen, is it. Huge shifts like that take cataclysmic events and the honest truth is that if you could fast-forward 10 years under Labour, or 10 years under Tory, and have a look... the country "in broad strokes" would look pretty much the same.

Oh I absolutely agree. There will be no magical economic transformation if Labour gets into power, no matter what his supporters believe. Nor do I think the majority of the UK people would tolerate a dictatorship. I don't believe Corbyn will get in at all, in fact. Thank God.
What I don't like is the current ugly mood as I detailed in my first post in this thread, and I think it would get uglier if he did get in.....and I have other personal reasons why I detest him, shared by a small number of others, and why I would despair if he achieved PM.

[user104658]

Oh I absolutely agree. There will be no magical economic transformation if Labour gets into power, no matter what his supporters believe. Nor do I think the majority of the UK people would tolerate a dictatorship. I don't believe Corbyn will get in at all, in fact. Thank God.
What I don't like is the current ugly mood as I detailed in my first post in this thread, and I have other personal reasons why I detest him, shared by a small number of others, and why I would despair if he achieved PM.

The "ugly mood" and tribalism has been at the forefront since long before the Corbyn / May era, though. I mean it's always been there, but I mean this current form of it, was already present when Cameron and Milliband were campaigning. People are being attracted to the extremes, picking a side, and treating it like a "game"... You only have to look at the "ha ha we won we won you lost!" attitudes in the aftermath of each vote to see that. It's not democracy, it's a sports match.

Funny thing is, I think if there was suddenly a completely centrist party, people would flock to them... But the political system is so entrenched that that's an impossible scenario. Any new party is going to be considered to be "unproven" and so people feel duty bound to vote for a "real, established" party even though the majority of people aren't that fond of either. It's a stalemate.

But with that being the case, we MUST continue to flip and flop between the two, no matter which you consider to be the lesser of two evils, the pendulum had to continue to swing. If one party - either of them - starts to feel "untouchable" in terms of retaining power, that's when the real trouble kicks in.

[DemolitionRed]

Superb post.

The thing ignored now is we have an extreme right wing govt in power.
Which is failing miserably.
One whose supporters are allowing it to trample over and add massive undue stress, to the weakest,poorest,sick and disabled.

One of the most sickening and unjust things anyone can do with power is hammer its most vulnerable in society.
Despicable.

Then when anyone speaks out against such vindictiveness and discrimination being enacted against the sick and disabled.
They get called extreme lefties.

Well hey I will happily be an extreme leftie than an extreme right winger,allowing their govt to have the sick and disabled being made to feel further low class citizens.
Rarely if ever saying anything against their govts policies never mind stopping supporting such a cruel hardline govt and PM.

I was brought up with the saying,the only time you should look down on others is when you are helping them back up.
This govt takes away vital support needed for those in dire need,while it protects those who don't need to be.

Good saying, I think I'll adopt that one :blush:

[Withano]

Well right wing politics ain't working. Maybe this is worth a try for both main parties. (Not that I'm literally humouring the hyperbole you fell for)

[jet]

The "ugly mood" and tribalism has been at the forefront since long before the Corbyn / May era, though. I mean it's always been there, but I mean this current form of it, was already present when Cameron and Milliband were campaigning. People are being attracted to the extremes, picking a side, and treating it like a "game"... You only have to look at the "ha ha we won we won you lost!" attitudes in the aftermath of each vote to see that. It's not democracy, it's a sports match.

It's a lot uglier now. We didn't have the far left Momentum then with their Marxist ideals....and we didn't have the OTT PC nonsense which is showing a worrying loss of rationality and perspective.
We didn't have transgender activists who call you a fascist if you have the view that a woman and a man are biologically different.
Or the strident keyboard warriors who call you a racist if you feel immigration should be curbed (not that I do personally). Or a sexual abuser if you happened to accidentally brush a woman's knee with your hand.
I'm sure you can think of many more examples.
Twitter and Facebook are used much more now and are a breeding ground for dissent and online witch hunts. The hard left site Skwawkbox, endorsed by Corbyn, feed the young fake news to discredit opposition which they take as gospel.

I really think it's worse....:shrug:

[user104658]

It's a lot uglier now. We didn't have the far left Momentum then with their Marxist ideals....and we didn't have the OTT PC nonsense which is showing a worrying loss of rationality and perspective.
We didn't have transgender activists who call you a fascist if you have the view that a woman and a man are biologically different.
Or the strident keyboard warriors who call you a racist if you feel immigration should be curbed (not that I do personally). Or a sexual abuser if you happened to accidentally brush a woman's knee with your hand.
I'm sure you can think of many more examples.
Twitter and Facebook are used much more now and are a breeding ground for dissent and online witch hunts. The hard left site Skwawkbox, endorsed by Corbyn, feed the young fake news to discredit opposition which they take as gospel.

I really think it's worse....:shrug:

It is getting worse but like I said I think that was inevitable, and it's also not one-sided. People are lurching hard to both "sides" in an almost tribal way. It's a battle... it's a "game"... and the harder one pushes, the more severe the backlash from the other, in a downwards spiral. Yes, all of the things you mention here are true and are problems; but in response, we have Trump as the POTUS, we have emboldened, GENUINE racists abusing the shield of "free speech". We have people basically saying "Damn PC to hell" and believing that they should be able to say literally whatever they want without any legal OR social repercussions (with the former being fair enough, but the latter nonsensical).

All of that said; I actually still think the problem is a very loud, very visible (especially online) minority and most people - other than on their bad days :hee: - are actually sick of ALL of it and want to settle back into a reasonable middle ground.

[DemolitionRed]

It's a lot uglier now. We didn't have the far left Momentum then with their Marxist ideals....and we didn't have the OTT PC nonsense which is showing a worrying loss of rationality and perspective.
We didn't have transgender activists who call you a fascist if you have the view that a woman and a man are biologically different.
Or the strident keyboard warriors who call you a racist if you feel immigration should be curbed (not that I do personally). Or a sexual abuser if you happened to accidentally brush a woman's knee with your hand.
I'm sure you can think of many more examples.
Twitter and Facebook are used much more now and are a breeding ground for dissent and online witch hunts. The hard left site Skwawkbox, endorsed by Corbyn, feed the young fake news to discredit opposition which they take as gospel.

I really think it's worse....:shrug:

These are just distractions. Distractions put in place so you don't look up and see what's actually going on. Most of us, I know I do, ignore all this hot air. Its certainly not in my face because I find it boring and trivial so I just shut it off and ignore it. The only time I get annoyed is when I hear a person persistently rant about a race or a certain type of sexuality but other than that I'm a live and let live sort of person.

This isn't the nitty gritty of politics. Its not about how this government is leading our country or how another party would lead it differently. If politics is such a vast subject, why put so much emphasis into such trivial matters when there are much bigger things we should be discussing such as energy, tax, military, the economy, the impending crash, health and social care and any one of the major subjects to do with turning the cogs in the big wheel.

[jet]

It is getting worse but like I said I think that was inevitable, and it's also not one-sided. People are lurching hard to both "sides" in an almost tribal way. It's a battle... it's a "game"... and the harder one pushes, the more severe the backlash from the other, in a downwards spiral. Yes, all of the things you mention here are true and are problems; but in response, we have Trump as the POTUS, we have emboldened, GENUINE racists abusing the shield of "free speech". We have people basically saying "Damn PC to hell" and believing that they should be able to say literally whatever they want without any legal OR social repercussions (with the former being fair enough, but the latter nonsensical).

All of that said; I actually still think the problem is a very loud, very visible (especially online) minority and most people - other than on their bad days :hee: - are actually sick of ALL of it and want to settle back into a reasonable middle ground.

I don't think people pushing to say literally whatever they want is anywhere near as prevalent as people being afraid to literally give honest and even mild opinions without being labelled as some 'ist' or other.
Trump is an extreme exception - an horrific man all round. If Americans continue to tolerate him, then they deserve him. He would never last in the UK.

I do hope you are right in what you say in your last paragraph. A middle ground is certainly needed - and soon.

[Brillopad]

These are just distractions. Distractions put in place so you don't look up and see what's actually going on. Most of us, I know I do, ignore all this hot air. Its certainly not in my face because I find it boring and trivial so I just shut it off and ignore it. The only time I get annoyed is when I hear a person persistently rant about a race or a certain type of sexuality but other than that I'm a live and let live sort of person.

This isn't the nitty gritty of politics. Its not about how this government is leading our country or how another party would lead it differently. If politics is such a vast subject, why put so much emphasis into such trivial matters when there are much bigger things we should be discussing such as energy, tax, military, the economy, the impending crash, health and social care and any one of the major subjects to do with turning the cogs in the big wheel.

And there we have it again you equating wanting to reduce immigration with a rant about race. It is you and others that accuse anyone that dare mentions immigration as racist causing half the problems.

Wake up immigration is a huge issue for hundreds of thousands plus in Britain, Europe and the West in general and is a subject very much up for discussion despite all the racist allegations from the shouty few attempting to close people down.

[jet]

These are just distractions. Distractions put in place so you don't look up and see what's actually going on. Most of us, I know I do, ignore all this hot air. Its certainly not in my face because I find it boring and trivial so I just shut it off and ignore it. The only time I get annoyed is when I hear a person persistently rant about a race or a certain type of sexuality but other than that I'm a live and let live sort of person.

This isn't the nitty gritty of politics. Its not about how this government is leading our country or how another party would lead it differently. If politics is such a vast subject, why put so much emphasis into such trivial matters when there are much bigger things we should be discussing such as energy, tax, military, the economy, the impending crash, health and social care and any one of the major subjects to do with turning the cogs in the big wheel.

We all have our own areas of interest. What may be a distraction and trivial to you, isn't to others.
This thread isn't a general discussion of the parties and their policies anyway.
Nobody is stopping you from making a thread discussing YOUR areas of interest.

[jaxie]

At the rate things are going, I will have to spoil my ballot the next time. There is noone to vote for. Labour is ridiculous, Tories are horrible, Lib dems are useless but they have no chance anyway. Its all a huge ****ing mess.

I cannot believe how much i thought Corbyn was amazing maybe 6 months back. Momentum are ****ing arseholes too. I do agree with a lot of Corbyns politics, but some stuff is extremely important to me and I am polar opposites with him/the party on

Welcome to my world for about 6 years now I've felt I had no one to vote for. Who'd ever have thought the Tories would be a softer option than Labour which I think is how it stands now. I'll never vote Lib Dems again after their treachery to the students. Corbyn and this shady momentum group have been ringing alarms bells from the get go for me.

I'm your floating voter, the one they need to win and neither party is anywhere near the finish line.

[Kizzy]

Well well... someones very jittery at the prospect of a left wing govt, they're even attempting to suggest he's too old for the job as if the lobster ripping cigar smoking brandy guzzling stuffed shirts would be any fitter.

What have the right wing and the 'centre' done other than outsource the country into the floor? Time for a new way.

And as for the 'hang the tories' banner that is constantly referenced as a a slight to the left for some reason there is not one scrap of evidence that suggests that that was anything to do with Labour or any Labour affiliates or members so why is it toted as such?
It's a prime example of a tabloidesque demonisation that has no basis in fact but is used to discredit 'the left'... even though when referred to previously I personally stated on hereI did not agree with such language.

Renationalisation is common sense and as it happens the only option as far as I can see, unless we want more foreign investment in our public services and infrastructure... If someone could explain how a sovereign country that is effectively run remotely from another works? Because to me that would be the last thing that anyone who voted brexit wanted! We want to govern our own affairs don't we?... Well, do it then! run our own hospitals, trains, construction and whatever else carrillion has ( govt approved) messed up.

Say whatever you like about the left it is all at this stage scaremongering to maintain the right wing status quo which is about as dire as it gets so I say it's time for another way, take for example the collapse of carriolion were provisions put in place for the pensions of the workforce?... no they were however for the bonuses of the major stakeholders, why? And why is that just taken as acceptable and not causing a national outcry?...
Because in some warped way it's seen as right, it can be done and so it must be right... but it isn't right it's totally corrupt and wrong and our government is to blame here and yet again all we see in the media is LOOK OVER THERE! LOOK WHAT THE LEFTIES ARE DOING NOW! OOOOOOH, THEY'RE TERRIBLE!
It's a smokescreen and in the same old tunnel vision fashion many just can't see the bigger picture here.

Try not to focus to intently on the 'what if's' and look at what is happening right here and right now and ask yourself if it's what you want for your country. If the answer is no then there's an alternative.

Corbyn has the backing of banks, business, he wants brexit but on the social side he wants people to maintain the rights and protections they enjoy today, a decent wage, housing, effective schooling, fair taxes, and access to higher education for all... Who doesn't want that?

[Kizzy]

1ynkHPsCbMY

[Brillopad]

Well well... someones very jittery at the prospect of a left wing govt, they're even attempting to suggest he's too old for the job as if the lobster ripping cigar smoking brandy guzzling stuffed shirts would be any fitter.

What have the right wing and the 'centre' done other than outsource the country into the floor? Time for a new way.

And as for the 'hang the tories' banner that is constantly referenced as a a slight to the left for some reason there is not one scrap of evidence that suggests that that was anything to do with Labour or any Labour affiliates or members so why is it toted as such?
It's a prime example of a tabloidesque demonisation that has no basis in fact but is used to discredit 'the left'... even though when referred to previously I personally stated on hereI did not agree with such language.

Renationalisation is common sense and as it happens the only option as far as I can see, unless we want more foreign investment in our public services and infrastructure... If someone could explain how a sovereign country that is effectively run remotely from another works? Because to me that would be the last thing that anyone who voted brexit wanted! We want to govern our own affairs don't we?... Well, do it then! run our own hospitals, trains, construction and whatever else carrillion has ( govt approved) messed up.

Say whatever you like about the left it is all at this stage scaremongering to maintain the right wing status quo which is about as dire as it gets so I say it's time for another way, take for example the collapse of carriolion were provisions put in place for the pensions of the workforce?... no they were however for the bonuses of the major stakeholders, why? And why is that just taken as acceptable and not causing a national outcry?...
Because in some warped way it's seen as right, it can be done and so it must be right... but it isn't right it's totally corrupt and wrong and our government is to blame here and yet again all we see in the media is LOOK OVER THERE! LOOK WHAT THE LEFTIES ARE DOING NOW! OOOOOOH, THEY'RE TERRIBLE!
It's a smokescreen and in the same old tunnel vision fashion many just can't see the bigger picture here.

Try not to focus to intently on the 'what if's' and look at what is happening right here and right now and ask yourself if it's what you want for your country. If the answer is no then there's an alternative.

Corbyn has the backing of banks, business, he wants brexit but on the social side he wants people to maintain the rights and protections they enjoy today, a decent wage, housing, effective schooling, fair taxes, and access to higher education for all... Who doesn't want that?

Not much point in caring for individuals if, whether by madness or sheer stupidity, the many can be wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear bomb because he has disarmed the nation.

The world is full of madmen who would see such an act as making Britain easy pickings and would be only too keen to oblige. If he ever makes PM, which I doubt, he should never be allowed such power and put us all at risk like that. That sort of unrealistic idealism is nothing short of mental illness.

[Kizzy]

Not much point in caring for individuals if, whether by madness or sheer stupidity, the many can be wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear bomb because he has disarmed the nation.

The world is full of madmen who would see such an act as making Britain easy pickings and would be only too keen to oblige. If he ever makes PM, which I doubt, he should never be allowed such power and put us all at risk like that. That sort of unrealistic idealism is nothing short of mental illness.

And just how in a democracy could he facilitate this?... Again this is just nothing more than a media inspired scare tactic, which you appear to have taken as gospel is going to come to fruition.... That is nothing short of mental illness, believing some fear driven hypothetical!

[Ammi]

We all have our own areas of interest. What may be a distraction and trivial to you, isn't to others.
This thread isn't a general discussion of the parties and their policies anyway.
Nobody is stopping you from making a thread discussing YOUR areas of interest.

...yeah I agree, what may seem less important to some could be at the fore front of importance to others..not only in their thoughts but also reflected in how they vote etc...all we can do is respect all of the many factors in engaging in voting and therefore respecting individual opinions in reasons etc...I guess all we can do is discuss as we are doing here, to maybe help in branching out and expanding perspectives to set the old thought processes in motion more to consider ‘bigger pictures’...:laugh:...rather than concentrating focus on one specific aspect, you know...but it’s also a human nature thing to do that too and a perogative to do so for anyone who feels that’s how they’ll cast their vote etc...no party will ‘tick off’ a wish list that will be grand for all, so it starts to be what we feel would be the better option overall in terms of government...

[joeysteele]

Well well... someones very jittery at the prospect of a left wing govt, they're even attempting to suggest he's too old for the job as if the lobster ripping cigar smoking brandy guzzling stuffed shirts would be any fitter.

What have the right wing and the 'centre' done other than outsource the country into the floor? Time for a new way.

And as for the 'hang the tories' banner that is constantly referenced as a a slight to the left for some reason there is not one scrap of evidence that suggests that that was anything to do with Labour or any Labour affiliates or members so why is it toted as such?
It's a prime example of a tabloidesque demonisation that has no basis in fact but is used to discredit 'the left'... even though when referred to previously I personally stated on hereI did not agree with such language.

Renationalisation is common sense and as it happens the only option as far as I can see, unless we want more foreign investment in our public services and infrastructure... If someone could explain how a sovereign country that is effectively run remotely from another works? Because to me that would be the last thing that anyone who voted brexit wanted! We want to govern our own affairs don't we?... Well, do it then! run our own hospitals, trains, construction and whatever else carrillion has ( govt approved) messed up.

Say whatever you like about the left it is all at this stage scaremongering to maintain the right wing status quo which is about as dire as it gets so I say it's time for another way, take for example the collapse of carriolion were provisions put in place for the pensions of the workforce?... no they were however for the bonuses of the major stakeholders, why? And why is that just taken as acceptable and not causing a national outcry?...
Because in some warped way it's seen as right, it can be done and so it must be right... but it isn't right it's totally corrupt and wrong and our government is to blame here and yet again all we see in the media is LOOK OVER THERE! LOOK WHAT THE LEFTIES ARE DOING NOW! OOOOOOH, THEY'RE TERRIBLE!
It's a smokescreen and in the same old tunnel vision fashion many just can't see the bigger picture here.

Try not to focus to intently on the 'what if's' and look at what is happening right here and right now and ask yourself if it's what you want for your country. If the answer is no then there's an alternative.

Corbyn has the backing of banks, business, he wants brexit but on the social side he wants people to maintain the rights and protections they enjoy today, a decent wage, housing, effective schooling, fair taxes, and access to higher education for all... Who doesn't want that?

Another great post from you Kizzy.

Needless to say I agree with all you say.
I also agree with Withano in saying right wing policies aren't working.
That is clear,how many targets have been missed and even abandoned by this govt.this last 7+ years.
How many of their own policies are they now dumping.

Their supporters avoid all that,were it a Labour or other govt however,who had been reducing planned growth figures near every budget.
Failing to make near any of their targets and reducing the NHS to the chaos it is in now,with across the board fears from staff,for patient safety.
The same people and the media would be screaming for Labour or that govt.to be out.

The fear of hardline Cons and their hardline supporters are not really what Labour would do,it is that the Cons are more than likely to not have power after the next election,'thankfully in my view'.

They think they should be the only party in power
always with the rest of parliament serving up token opposition
I have loads of usually Conservative supporters as friends, most of whom are dismayed at this govt.
Some could not vote for them in June last year.

This near hysterical venom against Corbyn,is possibly because he looks a winner after all.
He probably could at least lead the largest party at the next election.
The fear of their precious current heartless Cons in cabinet,being turfed out is behind the venom,I THINK.

When and if that happens, I really hope the great many decent and caring Con MPs make sure they take control of their party again.
Scrapping the cruel,heartless and nasty elements that have been far more evident in the current Con party under Cameron and now May.

Anyway,great post Kizzy.
No matter what others think I for one admire your determination and likely more factual posting.

[Brillopad]

And just how in a democracy could he facilitate this?... Again this is just nothing more than a media inspired scare tactic, which you appear to have taken as gospel is going to come to fruition.... That is nothing short of mental illness, believing some fear driven hypothetical!

Does Corbyn support unilateral disarmament or not? Are you denying he does?

[Brillopad]

Well well... someones very jittery at the prospect of a left wing govt, they're even attempting to suggest he's too old for the job as if the lobster ripping cigar smoking brandy guzzling stuffed shirts would be any fitter.

What have the right wing and the 'centre' done other than outsource the country into the floor? Time for a new way.

And as for the 'hang the tories' banner that is constantly referenced as a a slight to the left for some reason there is not one scrap of evidence that suggests that that was anything to do with Labour or any Labour affiliates or members so why is it toted as such?
It's a prime example of a tabloidesque demonisation that has no basis in fact but is used to discredit 'the left'... even though when referred to previously I personally stated on hereI did not agree with such language.

Renationalisation is common sense and as it happens the only option as far as I can see, unless we want more foreign investment in our public services and infrastructure... If someone could explain how a sovereign country that is effectively run remotely from another works? Because to me that would be the last thing that anyone who voted brexit wanted! We want to govern our own affairs don't we?... Well, do it then! run our own hospitals, trains, construction and whatever else carrillion has ( govt approved) messed up.

Say whatever you like about the left it is all at this stage scaremongering to maintain the right wing status quo which is about as dire as it gets so I say it's time for another way, take for example the collapse of carriolion were provisions put in place for the pensions of the workforce?... no they were however for the bonuses of the major stakeholders, why? And why is that just taken as acceptable and not causing a national outcry?...
Because in some warped way it's seen as right, it can be done and so it must be right... but it isn't right it's totally corrupt and wrong and our government is to blame here and yet again all we see in the media is LOOK OVER THERE! LOOK WHAT THE LEFTIES ARE DOING NOW! OOOOOOH, THEY'RE TERRIBLE!
It's a smokescreen and in the same old tunnel vision fashion many just can't see the bigger picture here.

Try not to focus to intently on the 'what if's' and look at what is happening right here and right now and ask yourself if it's what you want for your country. If the answer is no then there's an alternative.

Corbyn has the backing of banks, business, he wants brexit but on the social side he wants people to maintain the rights and protections they enjoy today, a decent wage, housing, effective schooling, fair taxes, and access to higher education for all... Who doesn't want that?

All right, keep your hair on. Of course everyone wants that but people disagree on who is best placed to provide that in the future and clearly many don't have much faith in Corbyn to do that. He talks the talk, but whether he can walk the walk or not is questionable. He also has a dodgy history and some very extreme left-wing views which do not sit well again with many people.

It is not as black and white as you make out and is not just about providing for those with less. There are many aspects of politics to think about including as to which party won't completely devastate our futures, increase public debt and damage the long-term economy, not just the short-term. Labour have no better a history than the Tories in many respects so stop implying the man has no faults and is some kind of second-coming - to believe that really is a mental illness.

[Livia]

All right, keep your hair on. Of course everyone wants that but people disagree on who is best placed to provide that in the future and clearly many don't have much faith in Corbyn to do that. He talks the talk, but whether he can walk the walk or not is questionable. He also has a dodgy history and some very extreme left-wing views which do not sit well again with many people.

It is not as black and white as you make out and is not just about providing for those with less. There are many aspects of politics to think about including as to which party won't completely devastate our futures, increase public debt and damage the long-term economy, not just the short-term. Labour have no better a history than the Tories in many respects so stop implying the man has no faults and is some kind of second-coming - to believe that really is a mental illness.

And that's why the far left is so dangerous. There is an excuse for every questionable action in Corbyn's past, and indeed, his present. They talk about making the country better for all... but that's not what they mean. They accuse others of cronyism when they are terribly guilty of it themselves ("Dame" Sharmishta Chakrabarti for instance...). There is a hatred of the rich, you only have to read through this forum to see that. Never mind the fact that they are employers and investors. I believe in the wisdom of crowds and I believe Corbyn will never get in. Luckily for me, if it does happen, I'll probably be living in the US... let's hope Trump has been impeached by then.

[Livia]

It’s scary to watch.No Labour votes from me again while this hard left element hold the power in Labour.
The woman who got most votes Yasmin Dar spoke at a rally last year to celebrate the 38th anniversary of the Iranian Khomeini-ist Islamic revolution.The regime responsible for shooting unarmed protesters.
“We’re here for a celebration.It’s a happy time,this is the third year i’ve been.It’s always in my diary”
Chairman of Labours disputes panel Christine Shawcroft says we should invite Islamic State for cups of tea rather than bombing them.

Ref:Daily Politics BBC2

There is always a sickening justification.


At the rate things are going, I will have to spoil my ballot the next time. There is noone to vote for. Labour is ridiculous, Tories are horrible, Lib dems are useless but they have no chance anyway. Its all a huge ****ing mess.

I cannot believe how much i thought Corbyn was amazing maybe 6 months back. Momentum are ****ing arseholes too. I do agree with a lot of Corbyns politics, but some stuff is extremely important to me and I am polar opposites with him/the party on

Great post.

[Kizzy]

Does Corbyn support unilateral disarmament or not? Are you denying he does?

He does, but as I said we live in a democracy there is no way he could even as PM override the will of the people.

There would be vote upon vote, he would have to have the backing of both his cabinet and the rest of parliament... it's never going to happen so again it's a pointless misnomer to suggest it as a viable reason not to have him as PM.

[Kizzy]

And that's why the far left is so dangerous. There is an excuse for every questionable action in Corbyn's past, and indeed, his present. They talk about making the country better for all... but that's not what they mean. They accuse others of cronyism when they are terribly guilty of it themselves ("Dame" Sharmishta Chakrabarti for instance...). There is a hatred of the rich, you only have to read through this forum to see that. Never mind the fact that they are employers and investors. I believe in the wisdom of crowds and I believe Corbyn will never get in. Luckily for me, if it does happen, I'll probably be living in the US... let's hope Trump has been impeached by then.

Again you're alluding to something that is only ever hinted at it isn't a fact, there is actual evidence against say, Hunt (BskyB) cameron ( phone hacking) to name just two. You're also neglecting to say theat the current PM is up to her scrawny neck in this carrillion scandal as it appears the govt have a vested interest and are not simply 'customers'.

Where on the forum is there any indication to a 'hatred of the rich' and why have you brought this into the debate, are you suggesting that those who become rich by means of corrupt activity shouldn't be held to account?...

If you believe in the wisdom of crowds then you will be interested in the views of the 500,000+ Labour members then perhaps?
If you choose to live in Trumpville then fair play to you I hear Ms hopkins has plans to move there too, there of course is no questioning of his personal integrity.

[joeysteele]

What's dangerous is any govt of any persuasion,hammering the weakest in any society including sick and disabled people.

Such as this vile govt has been allowed to get away with for over 7 years now.

That's a real danger to not only decent democracy but to people totally unable to have any influence or the strength to stand up for themselves.

There is no hatred of the rich from me,I am on the left now of politics.
That's an old jibe that's been used for decades,it's absolute rubbish.
However in any decent society,it should be the strongest backs that carry most of the load needed.
That's what the left advocate and it's a far more decent hope than the cruel heartlessness being allowed to be played out now,by this hardline lot leading govt.now.

[Kizzy]

All right, keep your hair on. Of course everyone wants that but people disagree on who is best placed to provide that in the future and clearly many don't have much faith in Corbyn to do that. He talks the talk, but whether he can walk the walk or not is questionable. He also has a dodgy history and some very extreme left-wing views which do not sit well again with many people.

It is not as black and white as you make out and is not just about providing for those with less. There are many aspects of politics to think about including as to which party won't completely devastate our futures, increase public debt and damage the long-term economy, not just the short-term. Labour have no better a history than the Tories in many respects so stop implying the man has no faults and is some kind of second-coming - to believe that really is a mental illness.

Can you reply without the playground chiding please?
Of course nobody knows what kind of leader he will be nobody can but at this point in time he appears to be offering what many in the country want, he has a viable manifesto and a mandate that's credible ...it's more than adequate.

There is nothing 'dodgy' about him, the media had dug and dug and the worst they've come up with is him attending a rally being manhandled by police officers, nothing more. He has no affiliations to any terrorist organisations such is the implication.

Are you aware if the increase in public debt over the period of the last two parliaments? It is very much about those with less as it is those who are bearing the brunt of these austerity measures.
Where will be the burden of the £200 billion to be creamed from the taxpayer fall would you say?

There is no mental illness here, I'm under no illusion that 'new labour' were faultless or there won't be difficult decisions to be made under a Corbyn govt however I need to borrow those rose tinted glasses of yours to see any merit in the May govt, as far as I can see she has led a merry band of incompetents. Every single minister has some skeleton or scandal in their past/present, for me at this stage they're only aim is to siphon off as much money offshore to their pals as possible... They know they're position is untenable so have chosen to bleed the country dry prior to 2020.

[jet]

There is nothing 'dodgy' about him, the media had dug and dug and the worst they've come up with is him attending a rally being manhandled by police officers, nothing more. He has no affiliations to any terrorist organisations such is the implication.

That's what the cult all say. There is plenty out there about his dodginess, you just don't do the research or block it all out. You conveniently fail to mention that it was an IRA rally. He was very much affiliated with IRA terrorists and murderers, it was just so long ago not many care anymore... The victims are still dead, but so what? Supporting a terrorist enabler and sympathiser is fine if it will put more money in pockets.
Just keep telling yourself it's all propaganda against the poor old dear and sleep well at night.

[DemolitionRed]

That's what the cult all say. There is plenty out there about his dodginess, you just don't do the research or block it all out. You conveniently fail to mention that it was an IRA rally. He was very much affiliated with IRA terrorists and murderers, it was just so long ago not many care anymore... The victims are still dead, but so what? Supporting a terrorist enabler and sympathiser is fine if it will put more money in pockets.
Just keep telling yourself it's all propaganda against the poor old dear and sleep well at night.

So what would your chosen party be Jet?
Do you think the Tories are doing a good job?
Should we be bringing back the likes of Blair and New Labour?
What's your views on our chosen political party in the here and now? presumably you've done as much research on the Cameron and May as you have on Corbyn.

[Kizzy]

That's what the cult all say. There is plenty out there about his dodginess, you just don't do the research or block it all out. You conveniently fail to mention that it was an IRA rally. He was very much affiliated with IRA terrorists and murderers, it was just so long ago not many care anymore... The victims are still dead, but so what? Supporting a terrorist enabler and sympathiser is fine if it will put more money in pockets.
Just keep telling yourself it's all propaganda against the poor old dear and sleep well at night.

He was at a rally, he didn't mastermind Bloody Sunday did he?

[jet]

So what would your chosen party be Jet?
Do you think the Tories are doing a good job?
Should we be bringing back the likes of Blair and New Labour?
What's your views on our chosen political party in the here and now? presumably you've done as much research on the Cameron and May as you have on Corbyn.

I'm not especially interested in broader politics DR, but I am very much interested and informed about the politics of my country, N. Ireland. My father and my uncle were involved in N. Ireland government in the 60's through to the late 90's, though both are passed away now. I spent quite a lot of time in my Dad's office in Stormont after I was delivered there from school listening with rapt attention to the various goings on while pretending to be totally absorbed with my 70's style Gameboy. :hee:
My chosen political party in N. Ireland is the SDLP (the Social Democratic and Labour Party) and always has been (my Dad's party). My uncle was Alliance.

I know a lot personally about Corbyn, I wish to God I didn't - May and Cameron, as much as anyone does about them personally I suppose.

Do I think the Tory's are doing a good job? No.
Do I think Labour under Corbyn would do better? Hell no.

[jet]

He was at a rally, he didn't mastermind Bloody Sunday did he?

No, he did not. His sins came after that event.

This is the third time in our rare discourses that you have slipped Bloody Sunday into the equation and it comes across as an excuse for the thousands of deaths caused by the IRA. Why do you keep referring to Bloody Sunday and never ever mention the thousands of deaths in the following years?
I have wondered for some time if you have the same sympathies as Corbyn....which may be one of the reasons why you support someone so unproven with such blindness and passion.

[Livia]

I'm not especially interested in broader politics DR, but I am very much interested and informed about the politics of my country, N. Ireland. My father and my uncle were involved in N. Ireland government in the 60's through to the late 90's, though both are passed away now. I spent quite a lot of time in my Dad's office in Stormont after I was delivered there from school listening with rapt attention to the various goings on while pretending to be totally absorbed with my 70's style Gameboy. :hee:
My chosen political party in N. Ireland is the SDLP (the Social Democratic and Labour Party) and always has been (my Dad's party). My uncle was Alliance.

I know a lot personally about Corbyn, I wish to God I didn't - May and Cameron, as much as anyone does about them personally I suppose.

Do I think the Tory's are doing a good job? No.
Do I think Labour under Corbyn would do better? Hell no.

I didn't know that about your background, jet. Very interesting.

[jet]

I didn't know that about your background, jet. Very interesting.

I don't think I have mentioned it before Livia. Corbyn supporters seem to think that I am so against him because I am a closet Tory or May fanatic, and I am just spouting propaganda against him; but the truth is I am not at all inspired to spend my time discussing the merits or otherwise of the main UK parties here. I am more interested in N.Ireland politics, with a special interest in the history of the Troubles.

[user104658]

I don't think I have mentioned it before Livia. Corbyn supporters seem to think that I am so against him because I am a closet Tory or May fanatic, and I am just spouting propaganda against him; but the truth is I am not at all inspired to spend my time discussing the merits or otherwise of the main UK parties here. I am more interested in N.Ireland politics, with a special interest in the history of the Troubles.The thing is though jet, you're unwilling to actually go into the specifics of what has forged such strong opinions / dislike. Which is completely fair enough, you're obviously not duty bound to do so, but also you can't state such strong opinions and then be surprised when people don't automatically agree on the back of comments like "I just know lots of things. I know secret stuff that others don't. Just trust me."

I mean... I'm not saying that you DON'T have information that others aren't aware of; but you can't keep using that to back up your arguments if you won't (or can't, for whatever reason) actually disclose what it is that you claim to know.

[jet]

The thing is though jet, you're unwilling to actually go into the specifics of what has forged such strong opinions / dislike. Which is completely fair enough, you're obviously not duty bound to do so, but also you can't state such strong opinions and then be surprised when people don't automatically agree on the back of comments like "I just know lots of things. I know secret stuff that others don't. Just trust me."

I mean... I'm not saying that you DON'T have information that others aren't aware of; but you can't keep using that to back up your arguments if you won't (or can't, for whatever reason) actually disclose what it is that you claim to know.

I've been posting my disdain of Corbyn long enough to be under any illusions that what I say makes any difference to his supporters, TS. Yes, there are things that I can't disclose, but even if I did, who would believe me?
I have posted what I can disclose and that I KNOW, that he was hand in glove with the IRA, he was a strong supporter and enabler, that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the peace process, quite the contrary, and it isn't believed.
But I'll continue to refute any references to his non - involvement and the nonsense that he played a big part in the peace process when I see them.

I realise I'm posting mostly to make ME feel better, and to feel I am doing something, anything, for those who were affected by him...and I'll continue to do so.

[Ammi]

I've been posting my disdain of Corbyn long enough to be under any illusions that what I say makes any difference to his supporters, TS. Yes, there are things that I can't disclose, but even if I did, who would believe me?
I have posted what I can disclose and that I KNOW, that he was hand in glove with the IRA, he was a strong supporter and enabler, that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the peace process, quite the contrary, and it isn't believed.
But I'll continue to refute any references to his non - involvement and the nonsense that he played a big part in the peace process when I see them.

I re alise I'm posting mostly to make ME feel better, and to feel I am doing something, anything, for those who were affected by him...and I'll continue to do so.

...:hug:...you’re never posting just for you, jet...All of your words and all of your thoughts are always of great interest..no matter what the topic...and no, you’re not attempting to reinforce an argument in any way...just speaking from your heart...:hug:...

[jet]

...:hug:...you’re never posting just for you, jet...All of your words and all of your thoughts are always of great interest..no matter what the topic...and no, you’re not attempting to reinforce an argument in any way...just speaking from your heart...:hug:...

Bless you Ammi, that means so much to me. :love:

[user104658]

To be fair jet, if it's any consolation, your posts (and looking into them) has been part of leading me to the conclusion that Corbyn is definitely not the answer. While I can't completely jump on board with the idea that he's a full-blooded terrorist sympathiser (I feel more likely he'll disingenuously support a lot of things to further various agendae), I do appreciate that he certainly isn't any BETTER than other mainstream UK politicians. He's developed a level of smugness that doesn't fit with the persona he's trying to project, at all, and therefore I can only imagine that most of what he says on any subject needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Underscore]

Coming from the centre faction of Labour - Progress - momentum are very loud and I've been berated loads of times for saying I supported Liz Kendall then Owen Smith for Labour leader.

It's sad to see what's becoming of my party.

[Livia]

I've been posting my disdain of Corbyn long enough to be under any illusions that what I say makes any difference to his supporters, TS. Yes, there are things that I can't disclose, but even if I did, who would believe me?
I have posted what I can disclose and that I KNOW, that he was hand in glove with the IRA, he was a strong supporter and enabler, that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the peace process, quite the contrary, and it isn't believed.
But I'll continue to refute any references to his non - involvement and the nonsense that he played a big part in the peace process when I see them.

I realise I'm posting mostly to make ME feel better, and to feel I am doing something, anything, for those who were affected by him...and I'll continue to do so.

Just to echo Ammi and TS.... I always look at, and enjoy your posts jet, you're definitely not posting for yourself.

[Kizzy]

No, he did not. His sins came after that event.

This is the third time in our rare discourses that you have slipped Bloody Sunday into the equation and it comes across as an excuse for the thousands of deaths caused by the IRA. Why do you keep referring to Bloody Sunday and never ever mention the thousands of deaths in the following years?
I have wondered for some time if you have the same sympathies as Corbyn....which may be one of the reasons why you support someone so unproven with such blindness and passion.

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

[joeysteele]

To be fair jet, if it's any consolation, your posts (and looking into them) has been part of leading me to the conclusion that Corbyn is definitely not the answer. While I can't completely jump on board with the idea that he's a full-blooded terrorist sympathiser (I feel more likely he'll disingenuously support a lot of things to further various agendae), I do appreciate that he certainly isn't any BETTER than other mainstream UK politicians. He's developed a level of smugness that doesn't fit with the persona he's trying to project, at all, and therefore I can only imagine that most of what he says on any subject needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.


See,I've gone the other way.
A staunch Labour supporter because I want more and better social justice.
So my right wing days are gone,especially with this truly awful uncompromising lot in govt now.

However, I was not an advocate of Corbyn,I felt it a mistake electing hin leader and I feared for the party.
However over time I have come round to him more.
He has brought policies back to Labour which firstly no one thought any leader would dare.
However again,as I found canvassing in June,people like the policies,they want them too.

While still holding reservations on Corbyn myself and indeed as do the people I talked to in June.
One thing came across more,people who even have reservations on Corbyn,do believe he believes in the policies he advocates.

They,and indeed I do too,really believe he would deliver those policies.
It amazed me the large and it seems ever growing number if the younger new voters, who want his policies too.
So I think the wishful thinking Corbyn is going to go away is going to now lead to disappointment to said people.
With over half a million membership and Labour so strong on the ground now and the Cons estimated to be at least under 100,000 membership,possibly more like only 80,000.

Corbyn has in his way,helped polarise politics again between the 2 parties again.
The choice is vastly different,his is the vision it seems the newer generation of voters want and they are ever growing now too.
So it's sad for me to see you pull back TS,as your past arguments especially on the cruelty and wrongs of this govt,all unchanged and still there,we're in my view strong and valid ones.

However this is democracy,I turned my back on the Cons, due to the endless heartless policies.
Equally you have altered your position now.

For me however,it's about fair and just policies,social justice and reaching out.
None of which I see in this PM governnents policies.
Which seem created to bring down further, those already down anyway and to keep them there.
Under the daft electoral system we have,there can only be a CON led govt or a LAB led govt.
I know,regardless of leader,which one I prefer and think the Country needs too now.

[jet]

To be fair jet, if it's any consolation, your posts (and looking into them) has been part of leading me to the conclusion that Corbyn is definitely not the answer. While I can't completely jump on board with the idea that he's a full-blooded terrorist sympathiser (I feel more likely he'll disingenuously support a lot of things to further various agendae), I do appreciate that he certainly smugness that doesn't fit with the persona he's trying to project, at all, and isn't any BETTER than other mainstream UK politicians. He's developed a level of therefore I can only imagine that most of what he says on any subject needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Thanks TS, for looking deeper into what I have said. That is all I could hope for; for people not to take Corbyn at face value but to look at him with less than rose - coloured glasses, listen to other views and experiences, do some research for themselves into his past and decide whether he is someone they can support - and hoping of course that they will see through his 'causes' (like his latest as an egotistical saviour from social injustices) as nothing more than a desperation for recognition and validation, no matter how many lies he tells or who it hurts along the way.

[jet]

Just to echo Ammi and TS.... I always look at, and enjoy your posts jet, you're definitely not posting for yourself.

Thank you Livia.

[jet]

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

Sadly, I see nothing here that tells me you condemn the IRA, as you have never done in any of your replies to me.

[Alf]

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

[Kizzy]

Sadly, I see nothing here that tells me you condemn the IRA, as you have never done in any of your replies to me.

I have, several times I'm no advocate of terrorism no matter what your implications previously.

Have you publicly condemned the loyalists, govt and security forces for their role in the troubles?

[Kizzy]

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

MMMMM Soylent green....

[Ammi]

To be fair jet, if it's any consolation, your posts (and looking into them) has been part of leading me to the conclusion that Corbyn is definitely not the answer. While I can't completely jump on board with the idea that he's a full-blooded terrorist sympathiser (I feel more likely he'll disingenuously support a lot of things to further various agendae), I do appreciate that he certainly isn't any BETTER than other mainstream UK politicians. He's developed a level of smugness that doesn't fit with the persona he's trying to project, at all, and therefore I can only imagine that most of what he says on any subject needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

...I have to say that I’ve never been hugely on board with Corbyn as a potential country leader but in recent times he’s felt quite ‘opportunist’ in ways that have been quite unpleasant...anyway not wanting to get too much into the political debates..:laugh:...I’m certainly no fan of the present government or leader, but I think as Livia has always said..it’s about the quality of labour as a party as well and being a strong opposition and the right opposition..rather than just taking one extreme end of a spectrum and zipping it along to the opposite extreme....?...I’m never that comfortable anyway when the leader of the party becomes ‘bigger than the party itself and what it stands for’...I think we had that to a large extent with Blair, that kind of ‘celebrity’ status...and well, look at the consequences with that...and obviously similar with the USA now...(...sorry Maru...)...and where the anti vote against Hilary has led them now...and also having an ego as a leader, which I’m not convinced Jeremy isn’t a very self ego person as well...

[Maru]

...I have to say that I’ve never been hugely on board with Corbyn as a potential country leader but in recent times he’s felt quite ‘opportunist’ in ways that have been quite unpleasant...anyway not wanting to get too much into the political debates..:laugh:...I’m certainly no fan of the present government or leader, but I think as Livia has always said..it’s about the quality of labour as a party as well and being a strong opposition and the right opposition..rather than just taking one extreme end of a spectrum and zipping it along to the opposite extreme....?...I’m never that comfortable anyway when the leader of the party becomes ‘bigger than the party itself and what it stands for’...I think we had that to a large extent with Blair, that kind of ‘celebrity’ status...and well, look at the consequences with that...and obviously similar with the USA now...(...sorry Maru...)...and where the anti vote against Hilary has led them now...and also having an ego as a leader, which I’m not convinced Jeremy isn’t a very self ego person as well...

I miss the ye old days when we would just vote for someone who sounded fit for the job (based on qualifications), rather than simply celebrity status. :laugh: That was a large defect of Hillary I think, was this sort of overexposure.

I wonder if like the's public apathy being one extreme of bad for political discourse, if there is maybe another extreme where the public have become too overly enmeshed (identity or whatever) with politics. So instead of scandals, issues or deals being hashed out in a more manageable way, we magnify the chaos and so those issues become too difficult to handle. It's easy to see why the smallest of issues can be hijacked by either side and make it very difficult to get things done. It used to be, you voted, but then you stood back and let the system do it's job (to the extent that is reasonable)... now everything is checked under a microscope. And people who have no idea the delicacy of such matters, or just simply opportunists who have an agenda, are injecting their projection of things in an effort to sabotage or manage the outcome. It makes it very difficult for a more moderate/less polarizing candidate to survive the way politics is being done today, much less to be electable...

There's this emphasis to make everything public, every public act of "treachery" punishable by way of polarizing media coverage and I wonder if our focus on being so incredibly honest and virtuous may having unintended side effects on our ability handle political discourse as a society. It seems like we sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot... because it does rob the moderates of a voice and it allows those who are truly problematic to get in-between those systems and civil discourse to push their most polarizing messages through.

I'll quote a good article that covers a lot of these complications fairly well... (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/)

We reformed closed-door negotiations. As recently as the early 1970s, congressional committees could easily retreat behind closed doors and members could vote on many bills anonymously, with only the final tallies reported. Federal advisory committees, too, could meet off the record. Understandably, in the wake of Watergate, those practices came to be viewed as suspect. Today, federal law, congressional rules, and public expectations have placed almost all formal deliberations and many informal ones in full public view. One result is greater transparency, which is good. But another result is that finding space for delicate negotiations and candid deliberations can be difficult. Smoke-filled rooms, whatever their disadvantages, were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled; once gone, they turned out to be difficult to replace. In public, interest groups and grandstanding politicians can tear apart a compromise before it is halfway settled.

[Ammi]

I miss the ye old days when we would just vote for someone who sounded fit for the job (based on qualifications), rather than simply celebrity status. :laugh: That was a large defect of Hillary I think, was this sort of overexposure.

I wonder if like the's public apathy being one extreme of bad for political discourse, if there is maybe another extreme where the public have become too overly enmeshed (identity or whatever) with politics. So instead of scandals, issues or deals being hashed out in a more manageable way, we magnify the chaos and so those issues become too difficult to handle. It's easy to see why the smallest of issues can be hijacked by either side and make it very difficult to get things done. It used to be, you voted, but then you stood back and let the system do it's job (to the extent that is reasonable)... now everything is checked under a microscope. And people who have no idea the delicacy of such matters, or just simply opportunists who have an agenda, are injecting their projection of things in an effort to sabotage or manage the outcome. It makes it very difficult for a more moderate/less polarizing candidate to survive the way politics is being done today, much less to be electable...

There's this emphasis to make everything public, every public act of "treachery" punishable by way of bad media coverage and I wonder if our focus on having everything be transparent, chaos and all, if we don't sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot... because it does rob the moderates of a voice and it allows those who are truly problematic to get in-between those systemsand civil discourse.

I'll quote a good article that covers a lot of these complications fairly well... (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/)

..yeah it does feel a bit in western politics like...’who has the best celebrity type publicity campaign’ when obviously it’s always been a combination of both...party values/policies as well as the leader as a person...the last election campaign was a shambles with one saying..I’ll give you everything and the other saying, I’ll give you nothing..:laugh:..i mean it just all leave s us all in limbo and desperate for a more centre party...our present government is awful and has been for some time...but I would t cast my vote for another awful, the only difference being it may be at the opposite spectrum of awful.../..all very gloomy I’m afraid...

[Brillopad]

See,I've gone the other way.
A staunch Labour supporter because I want more and better social justice.
So my right wing days are gone,especially with this truly awful uncompromising lot in govt now.

However, I was not an advocate of Corbyn,I felt it a mistake electing hin leader and I feared for the party.
However over time I have come round to him more.
He has brought policies back to Labour which firstly no one thought any leader would dare.
However again,as I found canvassing in June,people like the policies,they want them too.

While still holding reservations on Corbyn myself and indeed as do the people I talked to in June.
One thing came across more,people who even have reservations on Corbyn,do believe he believes in the policies he advocates.

They,and indeed I do too,really believe he would deliver those policies.
It amazed me the large and it seems ever growing number if the younger new voters, who want his policies too.
So I think the wishful thinking Corbyn is going to go away is going to now lead to disappointment to said people.
With over half a million membership and Labour so strong on the ground now and the Cons estimated to be at least under 100,000 membership,possibly more like only 80,000.

Corbyn has in his way,helped polarise politics again between the 2 parties again.
The choice is vastly different,his is the vision it seems the newer generation of voters want and they are ever growing now too.
So it's sad for me to see you pull back TS,as your past arguments especially on the cruelty and wrongs of this govt,all unchanged and still there,we're in my view strong and valid ones.

However this is democracy,I turned my back on the Cons, due to the endless heartless policies.
Equally you have altered your position now.

For me however,it's about fair and just policies,social justice and reaching out.
None of which I see in this PM governnents policies.
Which seem created to bring down further, those already down anyway and to keep them there.
Under the daft electoral system we have,there can only be a CON led govt or a LAB led govt.
I know,regardless of leader,which one I prefer and think the Country needs too now.

The country does not and never will need a Corbyn. He will cause far more problems than he solves. It is easy to promise this, that and the other but words come cheap. A party should never be more about the leader than the party and that is exactly what has happened with Corbyn.

Underneath though he is just a figurehead for Momentum. His popularity with the young who are naive and inexperienced enough to buy into his rhetoric gives the extreme left the foot in the door that they have so desperately been looking for and will have long term negative effects for our economy and democracy.

The country does not need to be so naive, the country needs to be strong and stand-up to this manipulative and publicity-seeking, cheap reality show brand of politics that misleads the inexperienced and conceals the controlling monster beneath.

[joeysteele]

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.


Gosh,you really believe that.

What is a cancer is peopkeuwith it having benefits taken off them, they should have,then having the intense added unnecessary stress of having to go to court and prove they should still have them.

That's one of the most rotten things about this govt which in itself should see them turfed out of power for.
Just one of many things too.
Despicable.


It's also time as to the welfare costs,the truth was stated, it's time to remove pensions from welfare figures.
Pension is an automatic right,worked for,not a benefit.

It makes up well over half of the welfare figures.
Used as a further hammer to belittle and cause suspicion and division from workers to those unemployed,sick and disabled.

That's the society building under this form of capitalism from this govt.
Socialism couldn't possibly make that worse at all.

Good lord,let's bring back workhouses again too to please the hardliners.

All,in my.view,the hardliners really want when they say they want a strong Labour party as opposition,is just that.
A Labour opposition,never a govt.
They just want continuous Con govt,from the same people on here and off as to that.
I've never heard them say they like any Labour leader,from left,right or centre.

While supporting this truly uncompromising and heartless PM we have now.

[Brillopad]

Gosh,you really believe that.

What is a cancer is peopkeuwith it having benefits taken off them, they should have,then having the intense added unnecessary stress of having to go to court and prove they should still have them.

That's one of the most rotten things about this govt which in itself should see them turfed out of power for.
Just one of many things too.
Despicable.


It's also time as to the welfare costs,the truth was stated, it's time to remove pensions from welfare figures.
Pension is an automatic right,worked for,not a benefit.

It makes up well over half of the welfare figures.
Used as a further hammer to belittle and cause suspicion and division from workers to those unemployed,sick and disabled.

That's the society building under this form of capitalism from this govt.
Socialism couldn't possibly make that worse at all.

Good lord,let's bring back workhouses again too to please the hardliners.

All,in my.view,the hardliners really want when they say they want a strong Labour party as opposition,is just that.
A Labour opposition,never a govt.
They just want continuous Con govt,from the same people on here and off as to that.
I've never heard them say they like any Labour leader,from left,right or centre.

While supporting this truly uncompromising and heartless PM we have now.

Gosh, you really believe that.

[Brillopad]

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

Oh come of it Kizzy - that is just another shut-down tactic. Jet has just given an honest opinion on what he sees from your words, or lack of them. He has not stated anything as fact.

If people can blatantly and repeatedly throw racist and homophobic allegations about based purely on their own opinion and interpretation of another’s words, not facts, and get away with it - they are in no position to object to another’s interpretation of their words expressed in a far less offensive and insulting manner.

[joeysteele]

Gosh, you really believe that.

Oh grow up.
I'm not in the least bit interested in what you think of what I say or think.
Not a single jot which I'm sure is the case vice versa and always has been.

[user104658]

See,I've gone the other way.
A staunch Labour supporter because I want more and better social justice.
So my right wing days are gone,especially with this truly awful uncompromising lot in govt now.

However, I was not an advocate of Corbyn,I felt it a mistake electing hin leader and I feared for the party.
However over time I have come round to him more.
He has brought policies back to Labour which firstly no one thought any leader would dare.
However again,as I found canvassing in June,people like the policies,they want them too.

While still holding reservations on Corbyn myself and indeed as do the people I talked to in June.
One thing came across more,people who even have reservations on Corbyn,do believe he believes in the policies he advocates.

They,and indeed I do too,really believe he would deliver those policies.
It amazed me the large and it seems ever growing number if the younger new voters, who want his policies too.
So I think the wishful thinking Corbyn is going to go away is going to now lead to disappointment to said people.
With over half a million membership and Labour so strong on the ground now and the Cons estimated to be at least under 100,000 membership,possibly more like only 80,000.

Corbyn has in his way,helped polarise politics again between the 2 parties again.
The choice is vastly different,his is the vision it seems the newer generation of voters want and they are ever growing now too.
So it's sad for me to see you pull back TS,as your past arguments especially on the cruelty and wrongs of this govt,all unchanged and still there,we're in my view strong and valid ones.

However this is democracy,I turned my back on the Cons, due to the endless heartless policies.
Equally you have altered your position now.

For me however,it's about fair and just policies,social justice and reaching out.
None of which I see in this PM governnents policies.
Which seem created to bring down further, those already down anyway and to keep them there.
Under the daft electoral system we have,there can only be a CON led govt or a LAB led govt.
I know,regardless of leader,which one I prefer and think the Country needs too now.

To be fair Joey I didn't say that I've gone towards supporting the conservatives; at the core I'll always be an advocate of independence (or full devolution) for Scotland under a socially responsible centre government.

For the UK, as I said in another thread just recently, the pendulum swinging is essential because a one-party state (either party) is literally THE worst possible situation for any country to be in. And I do feel that it's (now past) time for Labour to be in the driving seat... So I do support Labour for UK government and I do despise the Tories uncaring social policies.

However I now have some serious question marks surrounding Corbyn himself and his actual motivations. In his new found popularity and confidence, he has tipped his hand a few times and being honest, what I see is, as Ammi says above, an opportunist... and a popularist who will smugly back "whatever he thinks his supporters want to see him backing" in order to maintain and increase his popularity. And I generally hate the term - but he's hugely guilty of "virtue signalling", and it's to achieve an agenda that's not entirely clear to me. I don't feel like his end game is clear at all even though I get the strong impression that there is one... And that's troubling.

Basically I feel like what the Labour Party needs is realistic, sensible left-of-centre leadership with a strong focus on fair social policies; social mobility for those who want and need it (via actual funding, not the Tories "lol we'll take away ur money then u'll HAVE to work more!" policy). An end to unreasonable austerity measures and punitive tactics, and much greater support for the disabled and vulnerable. I think that's what people are LOOKING for in Corbyn but my gut instinct is that if / when he comes into power, his supporters are going to be disappointed.

So to reiterate... I haven't pulled back from my opinion that this government is wrong-headed, cruel, greedy and elitist. I'd also now happily add "disjointed and confused" and "utterly incompetent" to that list because they really are a shambles at the moment.

I do still fully support fairer social policies, I do still think that Labour is the better party to deliver them... I'm just skeptical of Corbyn himself at this point. He still sometimes says all the right things... I'm just not convinced of his sincerity.

[Brillopad]

Oh grow up.
I'm not in the least bit interested in what you think of what I say or think.
Not a single jot which I'm sure is the case vice versa and always has been.

That’s fine - but if you make comments I feel need challenging, I will do that - particularly in my thread. You know I also have strong opinions on this subject so I won’t just ignore posts just because you throw a wobbler if I comment. It isn’t me that needs to grow up here.

[joeysteele]

That’s fine - but if you make comments I feel need challenging, I will do that - particularly in my thread. You know I also have strong opinions on this subject so I won’t just ignore posts just because you throw a wobbler if I comment. It isn’t me that needs to grow up here.

Challenge them with facts then.

Is repeating my words to All challenging anything.

Should people with cancer have to go to court to get back benefits wrongly taken off them.
In part due to this govts policies.

Something I see you totally ignore.

[Brillopad]

Challenge them with facts then.

Is repeating my words to All challenging anything.

Should people with cancer have to go to court to get back benefits wrongly taken off them.
In part due to this govts policies.

Something I see you totally ignore.

I am not intentionally ignoring them - they are just not specifically what I believe the bigger picture of left/right political views to be about. Of course no wants to see people with cancer have to go to court to get their entitlement. No one in their right mind would think that was right.

[jet]

I have, several times I'm no advocate of terrorism no matter what your implications previously.

Have you publicly condemned the loyalists, govt and security forces for their role in the troubles?

You have never condemned the IRA by name in any replies to me, and you still haven't, but yes, they use the govt and the security forces as well as an excuse for their 30 year slaughter of thousands of innocents. Just like Corbyn the little jumped up revolutionary did. It appears to me that you think the IRA's future actions were somehow justified because of Bloody Sunday. That is the impression you give me.
I have condemned both the IRA and Loyalists Paramilitaries in previous replies to you. Those posts are here on this forum in black and white if you wish to remind yourself. But Corbyn didn't support the Loyalists did he? If my knowledge of him and his actions had been of his involvement with them instead of the IRA, I would still feel the same about him. It doesn't matter to me which murderous side he cosied up to, but the fact that he did at all.

[Underscore]

Also can I just say Corbyn trying to appease both Remainers and Leavers by not making his mind up on Brexit is not winning anyone over from either side???

Remainers that tactically voted Labour in the 2017 election are rapidly losing faith and Leavers who voted Labour thinking that they supported a hard brexit I should imagine are losing faith too.

[joeysteele]

I am not intentionally ignoring them - they are just not specifically what I believe the bigger picture of left/right political views to be about. Of course no wants to see people with cancer have to go to court to get their entitlement. No one in their right mind would think that was right.

Glad to hear that at least, re the cancer/benefits issue.

Sadly however it seems this govt and it's MPs don't mind it going on however.
I will however add that for me and many others,Corbyn would be better to announce that a govt led by him would scrap these foul ATOS style testing and assessments once and for all.

It was shocking that Labour actually started the ATOS contracting,I'd admire the contracts being terminated and save the costs to the taxpayer for them.

Furthermore,while it would surprise me if they did,I'd strongly applaud Conservative MPs forcing it's govt.to scrap the things too.
Knowing as I do that a good number of Conservative MPs are massively uneasy with these contracts and the criteria around their implementation.

[DemolitionRed]

That’s fine - but if you make comments I feel need challenging, I will do that - particularly in my thread. You know I also have strong opinions on this subject so I won’t just ignore posts just because you throw a wobbler if I comment. It isn’t me that needs to grow up here.

Really?!?

[Livia]

Really?!?

Brillo started the thread. Many other people refer to threads they've started as "my thread". Just for clarify...

[DemolitionRed]

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

You need to stop working yourself up on this propaganda nonsense because it just makes you sound ill informed. You seem to be obsessing with the word 'socialism' without understanding the difference between sociolism and the representation of social need. This country still has a social system but its a social system that's presently broken or breaking.
Corbyn doesn't want socialism! he wants democratic capitalism and the only way we can have that is to reverse the power of wealth and undermine plutocracy. Capitalism is broken and needs repairing. From where I'm sitting, there's only one party that can repair the damage.

[DemolitionRed]

Corbyn-economics aren't perfect... far from it. I'm wholly against and baffled by this hypothecated tax for the NHS, but I'm not going to agree with everything they suggest or do. On the whole though, I believe their economic strategy is the soundest thing we've seen for nearly two decades.

[DemolitionRed]

Brillo started the thread. Many other people refer to threads they've started as "my thread". Just for clarify...

Give over! She made it clear from her wording that its her thread. I'f I'd said that you would be the first to throwing stones.

[AnnieK]

Give over! She made it clear from her wording that its her thread. I'f I'd said that you would be the first to throwing stones.

Got to agree with Livia here DM. Lots of people in this section start threads and then class them as their own. Look back and you will see its the truth

[Brillopad]

Corbyn-economics aren't perfect... far from it. I'm wholly against and baffled by this hypothecated tax for the NHS, but I'm not going to agree with everything they suggest or do. On the whole though, I believe their economic strategy is the soundest thing we've seen for nearly two decades.

Good luck to you - but many don’t.

[DemolitionRed]

Good luck to you - but many don’t.

So if you and many don't like Corbyn-economics, please can you explain why?

What is it specifically you don't like?
We know the Lib Dems and the Green Party are behind Labour's economic policies but those are two parties adamantly against how the Tories run the economy, so if you don't agree with this Labour's style of economics you can't be Lib Dem or Green either.

How do you propose we can fix what's broken or do you even believe its broken?

[DemolitionRed]

Got to agree with Livia here DM. Lots of people in this section start threads and then class them as their own. Look back and you will see its the truth

I'll test that out some time in the near future :hee:

[Kizzy]

You have never condemned the IRA by name in any replies to me, and you still haven't, but yes, they use the govt and the security forces as well as an excuse for their 30 year slaughter of thousands of innocents. Just like Corbyn the little jumped up revolutionary did. It appears to me that you think the IRA's future actions were somehow justified because of Bloody Sunday. That is the impression you give me.
I have condemned both the IRA and Loyalists Paramilitaries in previous replies to you. Those posts are here on this forum in black and white if you wish to remind yourself. But Corbyn didn't support the Loyalists did he? If my knowledge of him and his actions had been of his involvement with them instead of the IRA, I would still feel the same about him. It doesn't matter to me which murderous side he cosied up to, but the fact that he did at all.

I have.. I'll do it again I condemn the IRA, UVF, govt or military persons who carry out acts of terrorism.
I'm not trawling the forum to find anything you have the opportunity to clarify here don't you?
He has consistently rejected all acts, he has never been asked if he condemns loyalist violence which personally I find odd in of itself... The traffic of questioning on this issue only ever flows one way, have you never noticed that?

If you care not about sides then why are you not as vocal about other politicians who are intrinsically linked to decisions that specifically targeted civilians for harm?

[jet]

I have.. I'll do it again I condemn the IRA, UVF, govt or military persons who carry out acts of terrorism.
I'm not trawling the forum to find anything you have the opportunity to clarify here don't you?
He has consistently rejected all acts, he has never been asked if he condemns loyalist violence which personally I find odd in of itself... The traffic of questioning on this issue only ever flows one way, have you never noticed that?

If you care not about sides then why are you not as vocal about other politicians who are intrinsically linked to decisions that specifically targeted civilians for harm?

I'll say it once again then....I condemn the IRA and Loyalist Paramilitary's. If the Govt and security forces deliberately set out to harm innocent people during the Troubles then I condemn that too. However, I doubt that happened on anything but an extremely small scale. You seem to think the Govt and military were somehow responsible for 'making' the IRA slaughter thousands of innocents...that they should just have stood by and let them get on with it and give in to their reign of terror.

As for your next paragraph, Corbyn was asked did he now condemn the IRA because he was a known IRA apologist and supporter. I would have thought that was obvious. And he refused to do so.
I'm not vocal about other politicians because they are not hoping to become the next PM - and I don't have personal information about 'others' whoever these others are supposed to be, that I do about Corbyn.
What other politicians are you talking about anyway, and what decisions are you claiming they made that targeted innocent civilians during the troubles? Name them and their perceived crimes.

[Livia]

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

[Kizzy]

I'll say it once again then....I condemn the IRA and Loyalist Paramilitary's. If the Govt and security forces deliberately set out to harm innocent people during the Troubles then I condemn that too. However, I doubt that happened on anything but an extremely small scale. You seem to think the Govt and military were somehow responsible for 'making' the IRA slaughter thousands of innocents...that they should just have stood by and let them get on with it and give in to their reign of terror.

As for your next paragraph, Corbyn was asked did he now condemn the IRA because he was a known IRA apologist and supporter. I would have thought that was obvious. And he refused to do so.
I'm not vocal about other politicians because they are not hoping to become the next PM - and I don't have personal information about 'others' whoever these others are supposed to be, that I do about Corbyn.
What other politicians are you talking about anyway, and what decisions are you claiming they made that targeted innocent civilians during the troubles? Name them and their perceived crimes.

You're making these bizarre accusatory comments again....Please don't put words in my mouth!
I'm not going into chapter and verse on the history of the troubles, I feel you have a have a rather blinkered perception is all.
There is a wealth of information that has come to light in recent years concerning injustices sanctioned by the govt at that time.
You will have to educate yourself and consider if you feel there is any wrongdoing by any other public figures.

[Kizzy]

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

Have you been googling again?... Is there a percentage that is ok, if they had all killed the same amount of people would they be any less condemned as a terrorist organisation? :/
We have armed more terrorists in modern times and been the catalyst for more civilian deaths, the last 'electable' Labour leader was Blair...
I agree entirely on your description of the current govt, clustr******* is apt, corrupt cluster*******s is also accurate.

[jet]

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

Exactly, and isn't it amazing how people turn and look the other way and just go on happily supporting the terrorist sympathiser Corbyn and his like - minded cronies. It's frightening, and no good can come of it.

[user104658]

Exactly, and isn't it amazing how people turn and look the other way and just go on happily supporting the terrorist sympathiser Corbyn and his like - minded cronies. It's frightening, and no good can come of it.

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

[jet]

You're making these bizarre accusatory comments again....Please don't put words in my mouth!
I'm not going into chapter and verse on the history of the troubles, I feel you have a have a rather blinkered perception is all.
There is a wealth of information that has come to light in recent years concerning injustices sanctioned by the govt at that time.
You will have to educate yourself and consider if you feel there is any wrongdoing by any other public figures.

Did the big bad government sometimes not play fair with the poor ickle terrorists? The heart bleeds.
Spare me your ignorance on the actions of the terrorists during the Troubles and, on the whole, the positive role of the Govt. Go and do some serious reading and educate yourself.

[Livia]

Have you been googling again?... Is there a percentage that is ok, if they had all killed the same amount of people would they be any less condemned as a terrorist organisation? :/
We have armed more terrorists in modern times and been the catalyst for more civilian deaths, the last 'electable' Labour leader was Blair...
I agree entirely on your description of the current govt, clustr******* is apt, corrupt cluster*******s is also accurate.

Some of us actually know stuff, Kizzy. My Dad served in Northern Ireland.

The rest of your post is a but hysterical and hard to comprehend.

[Livia]

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

We're talking about Northern Ireland TS. You may recall that there has been Labour governments during The Troubles. You're turning it into a debate about how the Tories arm terrorists.

[DemolitionRed]

We're talking about Northern Ireland TS. You may recall that there has been Labour governments during The Troubles. You're turning it into a debate about how the Tories arm terrorists.

I thought we were talking about why a Corbyn Labour government would be worse than a May Tory government. If we are going to talk about British leaders and terrorism, why just limit ourselves to Corbyn :conf:

[Livia]

I thought we were talking about why a Corbyn Labour government would be worse than a May Tory government. If we are going to talk about British leaders and terrorism, why just limit ourselves to Corbyn :conf:

Because of the thread title.

And we have someone on the forum who is actually from Northern Ireland and it's been a refreshing change to have someone speak from that perspective.

[jet]

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.

[user104658]

Because of the thread title.

Did you actually check the thread title or the first post before saying this? Because the thread isn't specifically about N.I, the IRA or Terrorism at all.

[jet]

Did you actually check the thread title or the first post before saying this? Because the thread isn't specifically about N.I, the IRA or Terrorism at all.

It's about Corbyn and his clique, so it could be said it is.

[user104658]

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.


Oh I get that entirely, but there's surely plenty of room in our hearts for detesting lots of people, especially the shower of vipers in politics. The horrible situation at the end of the day, is that in most cases anyone who rises through the ranks in politics is going to be a ruthless sh**.

But then what are voters to do? Surely all that can really be done is to try to vote for a party based on their policies and hope that they adhere to them (even though that's highly unlikely). In most of the UK for anyone who is wholeheartedly against current Tory policies and the things that are happening to certain demographics in the UK because of those policies, there is only ONE alternative to vote for... no matter who their leader is. I'm lucky enough not to have to make that call when I vote but if I was in England - although as I've said before I am now no Corbyn supporter at all - I would simply HAVE to support Labour because there is no viable alternative to the Tories... and the very real effects that Tory policies are having come before any personal dislike of a shady politician.

[user104658]

It's about Corbyn and his clique, so it could be said it is.

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

[jet]

Oh I get that entirely, but there's surely plenty of room in our hearts for detesting lots of people, especially the shower of vipers in politics. The horrible situation at the end of the day, is that in most cases anyone who rises through the ranks in politics is going to be a ruthless sh**.

But then what are voters to do? Surely all that can really be done is to try to vote for a party based on their policies and hope that they adhere to them (even though that's highly unlikely). In most of the UK for anyone who is wholeheartedly against current Tory policies and the things that are happening to certain demographics in the UK because of those policies, there is only ONE alternative to vote for... no matter who their leader is. I'm lucky enough not to have to make that call when I vote but if I was in England - although as I've said before I am now no Corbyn supporter at all - I would simply HAVE to support Labour because there is no viable alternative to the Tories... and the very real effects that Tory policies are having come before any personal dislike of a shady politician.

So, hypothetically speaking, would you vote for the hypothetical ISIS supporting leader of a party which I spoke of above, if his policies appealed to you over that of the Tories?

[DemolitionRed]

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.

In November last year, May made a three day visit to SA and Jordan to raise humanitarian issues about Yemen but the reality was, she wanted to forge a bold confident future with those countries as we head towards Brexit. She refused to reject the continuation of arms sales knowing those weapons are being used to kill hundreds and thousands of innocents.

We are the second biggest arms dealer in the world and most of the weapons we sell are fueling deadly conflicts. We sell them to oppressive countries like SA who are using those weapons to obliterate Yemen and deliberately taking out civilian targets. Our government often holds the hand of a terrorist... greed will see to that.

[user104658]

So, hypothetically speaking, would you vote for the hypothetical ISIS supporting leader of a party which I spoke of above, if his policies appealed to you over that of the Tories?

If the level was similar to that of what has been evidenced of Corbyn and the IRA? And the surrounding party wasn't also implicated? Yes. Because the UK parliament is set up in such a way that the Prime Minister's individual agenda is really not all that relevant in terms of what will realistically happen while they are in power... that is to say... a closet ISIS violence supporting PM would have absolutely no power to help ISIS gain any sort of foothold in the UK, without the backing of the rest of their party and probably other parties, which is never going to happen.

In the meanwhile, in realistic day-to-day life in the UK, the Tories are punitively crushing the vulnerable and the disabled, ruining real lives and causing thousands of families huge amounts of struggle on a daily basis. Not hypothetically; that is happening, right now, and will only get worse under Tory ideology. If the only alternative is a party with a dodgy leader and a VERY UNREALISTIC idea that said dodgy leader could actually impose his dodgy will on the rest of the country in some way... then yes I would have to vote for it, unfortunately.

[joeysteele]

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.


Really valid point again.

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.

Good luck with your efforts.

Unbelievable,someone,another agrees with because they are from N Ireland are considered an expert on Corbyn and the troubles.
I as a member of the Labour party,are deemed to know nothing as to Corbyn and then be classed as a supporter of terrorists or in a Jewish hating party.

They call that debate.
All powers that be help us.

[jet]

If the level was similar to that of what has been evidenced of Corbyn and the IRA? And the surrounding party wasn't also implicated? Yes. Because the UK parliament is set up in such a way that the Prime Minister's individual agenda is really not all that relevant in terms of what will realistically happen while they are in power... that is to say... a closet ISIS violence supporting PM would have absolutely no power to help ISIS gain any sort of foothold in the UK, without the backing of the rest of their party and probably other parties, which is never going to happen.

In the meanwhile, in realistic day-to-day life in the UK, the Tories are punitively crushing the vulnerable and the disabled, ruining real lives and causing thousands of families huge amounts of struggle on a daily basis. Not hypothetically; that is happening, right now, and will only get worse under Tory ideology. If the only alternative is a party with a dodgy leader and a VERY UNREALISTIC idea that said dodgy leader could actually impose his dodgy will on the rest of the country in some way... then yes I would have to vote for it, unfortunately.

Wow. See, I could never back someone who individually personally supported terrorists who murdered innocent men, woman and children going about their daily business....and Corbyn isn't alone in his support, he has John McDonnell and Diane Abbott as like minded cronies...could be others.
I guess that's my fantasy of Corbyn being outed at an ISIS terrorists funeral and being overthrown gone up in smoke then. Damnit.

But at least you gave an honest answer.

[jet]

Really valid point again.

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.

Good luck with your efforts.

Unbelievable,someone,another agrees with because they are from N Ireland are considered an expert on Corbyn and the troubles.
I as a member of the Labour party,are deemed to know nothing as to Corbyn and then be classed as a supporter of terrorists or in a Jewish hating party.

They call that debate.
All powers that be help us.

I don't remember ever discussing Corbyn with you. :conf:

[Livia]

Did you actually check the thread title or the first post before saying this? Because the thread isn't specifically about N.I, the IRA or Terrorism at all.

No. It's specifically about Corbyn. And the question got on to his support of terrorist... come on TS, you don't need me to explain that, surely.

[jet]

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.


What other take can I have on it but my own? My stance is, and always has been here, that I condemn the IRA and the Loyalists Paramilitary terrorists. I condemn and detest Corbyn for being an IRA terrorist supporter (he never supported the Loyalists.) If he had, I would detest him for that too.
I particularly detest the IRA for indiscriminately murdering over a thousand innocent civilians - women, children, babies and pregnant women among them, Catholic and Protestant. Loyalists murdered innocent adults also, mostly Catholics, they did not target children and babies etc.
What is your problem with this?

[joeysteele]

What other take can I have on it but my own? My stance is, and always has been here, that I condemn the IRA and the Loyalists Paramilitary terrorists. I condemn and detest Corbyn for being an IRA terrorist supporter (he never supported the Loyalists.) If he had, I would detest him for that too.
I particularly detest the IRA for indiscriminately murdering over a thousand innocent civilians - women, children, babies and pregnant women among them, Catholic and Protestant. Loyalists murdered innocent adults also, mostly Catholics, they did not target children and babies etc.
What is your problem with this?


No problem at all but it is your take and not all in N Ireland take your position.
I don't see the evidence either of Corbyn being a supporter of terrorist murder either.
If he had really been and there was evidence he'd have been arrested, not be leader of a UK wide Party.

That comes from your hate of him and the IRA, things had to move on, in the name of peace.

Most have in N Ireland thankfully, some however haven't.

My take yes my take is different to yours.
You have discounted,applauded and supported by others, my take on the issue.
Just as I do not agree with yours,you do not agree with mine.

I don't see Corbyn as you do,if I believed he supported terrorist atrocities and murder,I would not be a member of the Labour party.
Just as I do not believe any Con leader either would support terrorist atrocities and murder either.

They could not be leaders of parties if that was the case.
You keep spouting the same accusations with no evidence presented.
If you and others supporting your accusations,had any evidence to really substantiate your very serious accusations against Corbyn,maybe you should present it to the authorities.

[jet]

No problem at all but it is your take and not all in N Ireland take your position.
I don't see the evidence either of Corbyn being a supporter of terrorist murder either.
If he had really been and there was evidence he'd have been arrested, not be leader of a UK wide Party.
.

I would like to think that most compassionate people would share my take on the N.Ireland terrorist atrocities, especially the murder of innocent children and babies. :conf:

What are they going to arrest Corbyn for now? It was long ago...there are photos of him at IRA rallies - he was arrested at one, but that doesn't get into the nitty gritty of his involvement; the only thing people can morally to do right now if they care at all is to read all the information for and against and listen to their consciences or their gut instincts. Do you really believe that the Labour Party powers that chose him as leader didn't know about his IRA affiliations?

Apart from what I know myself and can't reveal, (which you will of course dismiss and I blame no one for that), there is plenty out there about Corbyn's support of the IRA, and I know much of it to be true, but people just don't bother reading it, or don't believe it. All those people and articles are dismissed as lies; I'm lying, the former Nationalist First Minister of N. Ireland is lying, some members of the IRA themselves are lying....only Corbyn is telling the truth. How likely is that?

No doubt right wing supporters have made sure they got the dirt out there about him but that doesn't mean they are lies - much of it is not.....and
Corbyn isn't suing, for obvious reasons. What more can be done if people just turn away? Not everyone cares about this stuff, but I do and many others do.

I think if Corbyn getting to Downing st were to become a reality, many more questions about his past will be stepped up.

[joeysteele]

I would like to think that most compassionate people would share my take on the N.Ireland terrorist atrocities, especially the murder of innocent children and babies. :conf:

What are they going to arrest Corbyn for now? It was long ago...there are photos of him at IRA rallies - he was arrested at one, but that doesn't get into the nitty gritty of his involvement; the only thing people can morally to do right now if they care at all is to read all the information for and against and listen to their consciences or their gut instincts. Do you really believe that the Labour Party powers that chose him as leader don't know about his IRA affiliations?

Apart from what I know myself and can't reveal, (which you will of course dismiss and I blame no one for that), there is plenty out there about Corbyn's support of the IRA, and I know much of it to be true, but people just don't bother reading it, or don't believe it. All those people and articles are dismissed as lies; I'm lying, the former Nationalist First Minister of N. Ireland is lying, some members of the IRA themselves are lying....only Corbyn is telling the truth. How likely is that?

No doubt right wing supporters have made sure they got the dirt out there about him but that doesn't mean they are lies - much of it is not.....and
Corbyn isn't suing, for obvious reasons. What more can be done if people just turn away? Not everyone cares about this stuff, but I do and many others do.

I think if Corbyn getting to Downing st were to become a reality, many more questions about his past will be stepped up.


Good grief,more brought up against him if he got to be PM.

You think the DM the Sun or even papers like the Telegraph haven't looked and scratched as far as they can on him.
Even moreso since he became leader.

So you are spouting false accusations you cannot substantiate publicly.

If he gets to be PM of the UK,in my view,he will be far more compassionate fairer and a better PM than this one we are lumbered with now,with her cruel heartless policies.

He likely has many faults,however false accusations and supposition are ridiculous unless the public accuser,an this is a public forum,has concrete evidence.

[Vicky.]

Good grief,more brought up against him if he got to be PM.

You think the DM the Sun or even papers like the Telegraph haven't looked and scratched as far as they can on him.
Even moreso since he became leader.

So you are spouting false accusations you cannot substantiate publicly.

If he gets to be PM of the UK,in my view,he will be far more compassionate fairer and a better PM than this one we are lumbered with now,with her cruel heartless policies.

He likely has many faults,however false accusations and supposition are ridiculous unless the public accuser,an this is a public forum,has concrete evidence.
Heh. This really wouldn't take much :p A ****ing rock would be a more compassionate, fairer and better PM than May is

Far rather Corbyn than May, thats for sure.

[jet]

Good grief,more brought up against him if he got to be PM.

You think the DM the Sun or even papers like the Telegraph haven't looked and scratched as far as they can on him.
Even moreso since he became leader.

So you are spouting false accusations you cannot substantiate publicly.

If he gets to be PM of the UK,in my view,he will be far more compassionate fairer and a better PM than this one we are lumbered with now,with her cruel heartless policies.

He likely has many faults,however false accusations and supposition are ridiculous unless the public accuser,an this is a public forum,has concrete evidence.

They are false accusations and supposition to you. I know better, as my father and uncle were both in government at Stormont, and knew all about his activities. They have both passed away, and they will rest in peace.

[joeysteele]

Heh. This really wouldn't take much :p A ****ing rock would be a more compassionate, fairer and better PM than May is

Far rather Corbyn than May, thats for sure.

I know he isn't everyone's idea of a PM Vicky.
He was never my choice for leader,I had strong doubts.

He won me with policies however,he has put Labour at last with a real alternative to the Cons on policies.

There is much wrong in Labour,as in all Parties.
Labour party under Corbyn have escalated to over half a million members.

For me,with all the niggles,I think he warrants a chance with a team dedicated to more compassionate social justice policies.
There has to be better than this uncompromising heartless PM and her hardline Cabinet.
The decent Con MPs are not going to make any moves or real changes so I can see, and I never thought I would be saying this,I can now see a Corbyn led minority govt.with SNP likely support.
Or a small majority Labour one.

That fills fear, likely not of what Labour would do but for the Cons losing their grip on power.
15 more seats in June to Labour would have had the Cons out.
That's how close it got.

I think it is now more a likelihood it will happen next time now.
Although I still would love to hear him go further as to social policy,such as ending and scrapping these costly to the taxpayer ATOS style contracts for starters.

[user104658]

They are false accusations and supposition to you. I know better, as my father and uncle were both in government at Stormont, and knew all about his activities. They have both passed away, and they will rest in peace.It's hearsay though jet. You can't expect us to unquestioningly take the word of "your dad and uncle"... You do, because you knew them, but no one else here did. It's meaningless.

I'm not saying it is definitely false, maybe everything they said to you was 100% accurate, but it's just... Not enough. It's not evidence of any description, to anyone but you and others who personally knew them.

[jet]

It's hearsay though jet. You can't expect us to unquestioningly take the word of "your dad and uncle"... You do, because you knew them, but no one else here did. It's meaningless.

I'm not saying it is definitely false, maybe everything they said to you was 100% accurate, but it's just... Not enough. It's not evidence of any description, to anyone but you and others who personally knew them.

I'm not biting, TS.
....and I've told you before, I don't expect anything. I post about Corbyn for me and those he hurt.

[joeysteele]

They are false accusations and supposition to you. I know better, as my father and uncle were both in government at Stormont, and knew all about his activities. They have both passed away, and they will rest in peace.


Well,while in Stornont why did they not raise the evidence.
Why not,or did they leave concrete evidence with you or other family.

If not,why.

If it exists hand it to the authorities,if it doesn't then it's wrong to publicly accuse anyone of anything,no matter and just because you personally hate the individual.

If I had evidence anyone had actively supported terrorist activities and multiple murders,I would not rest until it was brought to justice.
If no such substantiated evidence exists however,I'd be wary of making such damming,serious accusations publicly.

[jet]

Well,while in Stornont why did they not raise the evidence.
Why not,or did they leave concrete evidence with you or other family.

If not,why.

If it exists hand it to the authorities,if it doesn't then it's wrong to publicly accuse anyone of anything,no matter and just because you personally hate the individual.

If I had evidence anyone had actively supported terrorist activities and multiple murders,I would not rest until it was brought to justice.
If no such substantiated evidence exists however,I'd be wary of making such damming,serious accusations publicly.

Balderdash - there are numerous publications accusing him of being an IRA terrorist sympathiser and supporter. He hasn't sued even one of them yet - why not?

[Vicky.]

There are numerous publications stating that Obama is actually a lizard person intent on eradicating the world. He didn't sue any of them that I am aware of. Maybe, just maybe, politicians and the likes know that stuff will be said about them and its part of the job to deal with/ignore smear campaigns. Not suing proves nothing.

Though I am not saying its all definitely false, noone knows for sure. But saying 'he hasn't sued so it must be true' is pretty silly really :laugh:

[joeysteele]

Balderdash - there are numerous publications accusing him of being an IRA terrorist sympathiser and supporter. He hasn't sued even one of them yet - why not?

None have been substantiated what do you not get about things needing substantiation.

I don't and multi millions of others don't agree with the inferences from the press.
They have not furnished any evidence at all,he has nothing to answer to.

You are not the media,you state you KNOW he supported terrorist murders.
You are telling us that.
People make a great play on here as to saying prove what you are saying.

I've asked a simple point following your insistence he supported terrorist murdering of people.
So where is it?
If there's none,don't expect to be taken seriously and lecture others as to their support for a leader who from media,individuals or authorities has a single substantiated concrete piece of evidence, he supported terrorist murdering of innocent people.

That's a very serious claim and charge to make publicly jet.
Very serious indeed but wrong to do so,if you have not a scrap of any concrete substantiated evidence.

Now if you cannot see the wrong in that,with respect that's your problem,not mine.

I say finally now,if you have the evidence that is concrete as to your accusations against Corbyn prove it.
If not,you make I'm sorry to point out,a likely doubtful at best statement.

[jet]

None have been substantiated what do you not get about things needing substantiation.

I don't and multi millions of others don't agree with the inferences from the press.
They have not furnished any evidence at all,he has nothing to answer to.

You are not the media,you state you KNOW he supported terrorist murders.
You are telling us that.
People make a great play on here as to saying prove what you are saying.

I've asked a simple point following your insistence he supported terrorist murdering of people.
So where is it?
If there's none,don't expect to be taken seriously and lecture others as to their support for a leader who from media,individuals or authorities has a single substantiated concrete piece of evidence, he supported terrorist murdering of innocent people.

That's a very serious claim and charge to make publicly jet.
Very serious indeed but wrong to do so,if you have not a scrap of any concrete substantiated evidence.

Now if you cannot see the wrong in that,with respect that's your problem,not mine.

I say finally now,if you have the evidence that is concrete as to your accusations against Corbyn prove it.
If not,you make I'm sorry to point out,a likely doubtful at best statement.

You haven't answered the question - there have been numerous publications detailing Corbyn as an IRA supporter and sympathiser. Why hasn't he sued?
Because he CAN'T.
You say you have read these allegations, where is YOUR proof they AREN'T true, seeing you are so keen on proof?

I don't care who believes me and I don't expect belief - and I don't have to prove anything to you or to anyone else. I know what I know, and I'll continue to show and tell of my disdain of Corbyn whenever I feel it is relevant within the rules. If I am told something is against the rules by the admin, I'll stop, but certainly not because you don't approve. This forum isn't a court of law and you haven't been appointed the forums lawyer.

[Kizzy]

Some of us actually know stuff, Kizzy. My Dad served in Northern Ireland.

The rest of your post is a but hysterical and hard to comprehend.

Oh and there was me thinking this was a debate forum, it matters not what your dad did, your nan or your dog!
Many of my family have also served in the forces, there is no such thing as a vicarious opinion.

What does this mean I can't understand it, did you in your rush to mock me get a little jumbled?

I have a view, I don't care if you like or agree with it.

[joeysteele]

You haven't answered the question - there have been numerous publications detailing Corbyn as an IRA supporter and sympathiser. Why hasn't he sued?
Because he CAN'T.

I don't care who believes me and I don't expect belief - and I don't have to prove anything to you or to anyone else. I know what I know, and I'll continue to show and tell of my disdain of Corbyn whenever I feel it is relevant within the rules. If I am told something is against the rules by the admin, I'll stop, but certainly not because you don't approve. This forum isn't a court of law and you haven't been appointed the forums lawyer.


I did answer your question.
We are going round in circles,politicians know the press are pathetic.

I am,and I'd guess I'm not likely the only one still waiting for your substantiated factual evidence that proves, since you say you KNOW,that Corbyn supported terrorist murders of innocent people.

Before you ask any more questions and likely get answers,for you to be credible as to your continuous serious accusations,prove what you accuse him of is so with the evidence you have.
If you've none,which I think is the case.

Time to stop pressing others on this issue without concrete proof.

Very few politicians sue publications for lies and wrong information about them.
If they did,the MPs and press would likely never be out of the courts.

You however claim he is responsible for actively supporting terrorist murders of innocent people.
Just more likely from your hate of the man and likely more possible his politics.

[joeysteele]

You haven't answered the question - there have been numerous publications detailing Corbyn as an IRA supporter and sympathiser. Why hasn't he sued?
Because he CAN'T.
You say you have read these allegations, where is YOUR proof they AREN'T true, seeing you are so keen on proof?

I don't care who believes me and I don't expect belief - and I don't have to prove anything to you or to anyone else. I know what I know, and I'll continue to show and tell of my disdain of Corbyn whenever I feel it is relevant within the rules. If I am told something is against the rules by the admin, I'll stop, but certainly not because you don't approve. This forum isn't a court of law and you haven't been appointed the forums lawyer.


Oh,and in UK law the rule of law is ' Guilt has to be proven,not innocence'
Unless you are rewriting law too.

It might be possibly better not to come on without evidence accusing someone of something serious and then decide you do not want any comeback to same.

[jet]

I did answer your question.
We are going round in circles,politicians know the press are pathetic.

I am,and I'd guess I'm not likely the only one still waiting for your substantiated factual evidence that proves, since you say you KNOW,that Corbyn supported terrorist murders of innocent people.

Before you ask any more questions and likely get answers,for you to be credible as to your continuous serious accusations,prove what you accuse him of is so with the evidence you have.
If you've none,which I think is the case.

Time to stop pressing others on this issue without concrete proof.

Very few politicians sue publications for lies and wrong information about them.
If they did,the MPs and press would likely never be out of the courts.

You however claim he is responsible for actively supporting terrorist murders of innocent people.
Just more likely from your hate of the man and likely more possible his politics.

How many times do I have to say it, I don't care if people think I'm credible or not or who demands proof. I'm posting for me and for others affected by him, to get out what is inside ME. Better out than in, they say, and they are right, it helps.
As you are so keen on proof, and you are adamant he wasn't an IRA supporter, why don't YOU prove he wasn't?
There have been many neutral commentators and articles on the subject of his activities as well and I have linked to some of those in the past - but none of his supporters bothered commenting.

Back when I started posting about detesting Corbyn, I didn't even have an interest in his politics, or the Cons politics, or any politics outside of N. Ireland for that matter. Did you ever see me posting in any political threads in SD in the past? During Brexit? During the elections? I have just recently started paying more attention to the parties policies.
I guess I just suddenly decided to hate Corbyn because he has terrible dress sense or something? No, of course not.

[jet]

Oh,and in UK law the rule of law is ' Guilt has to be proven,not innocence'
Unless you are rewriting law too.

It might be possibly better not to come on without evidence accusing someone of something serious and then decide you do not want any comeback to same.

I have never said to anyone "I'm saying this, and I don't want any comeback".
I deal with all comeback, and I'll continue to do so.

[Kizzy]

This is getting very cyclical and boring, as said the press would have a field day with anything literally anything that even remotely linked him to any terrorist involvement and should they be free to use that without any legal ramifications no doubt at all they would.

That would and should be out there in the public domain, yet it is not nobody can be expected to condemn anyone on hearsay.

Were is to be something like this ...
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/10/09/news/dup-has-also-been-criticised-for-loyalist-links-288278/

Then there would obviously be a new discussion to be had.

[Underscore]

This thread got me like

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-09/7/11/enhanced/webdr14/anigif_enhanced-26075-1441640470-19.gif

chilling in the progress faction like

[joeysteele]

You haven't given any either, on more than one subject. With respect.

I'm sick of answering you and asking for your proof of what you say.

I state again,I do not accept Corbyn supports terrorist murders of innocent people or indeed any people.
I do not see him as you do.
I am not the one accusing him of anything,you are with no validation back up.

You are the one refusing to back up what you state as fact,not me.

Now actually you are bordering on baiting and quite frankly until you present proof of your accusations against Corbyn, you will neither get or deserve answers.

All you want to do is likely vent your hate for Corbyn and draw that out by going round in circles.
With your false accusations, which they are because not only has he not been prosecuted for anything you say,neither has he even been interviewed.

Why?
Because factually there is not and hasn't been any evidence against him whatsoever.
I'd even predict there will be none in the future either.

It now seems clear, you have none either.

So nothing to discuss if that is the case really.
I support Corbyn, you don't,pure and simple.

If you had concrete evidence that would change my stance, since you cannot,I am happy as I am supporting an innocent man leading a political party.
While you only wallow in your hate of said same man.

[jet]

I'm sick of answering you and asking for your proof of what you say.

I state again,I do not accept Corbyn supports terrorist murders of innocent people or indeed any people.
I do not see him as you do.
I am not the one accusing him of anything,you are with no validation back up.

You are the one refusing to back up what you state as fact,not me.

Now actually you are bordering on baiting and quite frankly until you present proof of your accusations against Corbyn, you will neither get or deserve answers.

All you want to do is likely vent your hate for Corbyn and draw that out by going round in circles.
With your false accusations, which they are because not only has he not been prosecuted for anything you say,neither has he even been interviewed.

Why?
Because factually there is not and hasn't been any evidence against him whatsoever.
I'd even predict there will be none in the future either.

It now seems clear, you have none either.

So nothing to discuss if that is the case really.
I support Corbyn, you don't,pure and simple.

If you had concrete evidence that would change my stance, since you cannot,I am happy as I am supporting an innocent man leading a political party.
While you only wallow in your hate of said same man.

You just repeat the same things over and over and don't respond to anything else I say in my individual posts.
If you insist it is clear I know nothing, then why are you so rattled?
Why are you wasting you time on me?
He has been interviewed, actually, and refused to condemn the IRA by name five times in a row, and then hung up. In another interview he refused to condemn them outright also. Do your research.
Carry on with your Corbyn support and your beliefs and leave me to carry on with what I know, and other things which others know, including a former First Minister and former IRA members themselves (some of whom have been interviewed).
Deal?

[jet]

....and Joey, maybe have the sensitivity needed in your profession to suss out that revealing anything would bring others into the equation who wouldn't deserve the trouble and stress. It was a selfish way, for me, to wash it out of me...and it mostly has...
It doesn't mean I'll stop calling him what he is, an IRA terrorist hugger and lover. Someone who got his ego stroked and his self importance boosted by hanging around with murderers and their 'struggle' against democracy.

[Brillopad]

You just repeat the same things over and over and don't respond to anything else I say in my individual posts.
If you insist it is clear I know nothing, then why are you so rattled?
Why are you wasting you time on me?
He has been interviewed, actually, and refused to condemn the IRA by name five times in a row, and then hung up. In another interview he refused to condemn them outright also. Do your research.
Carry on with your Corbyn support and your beliefs and leave me to carry on with what I know, and other things which others know, including a former First Minister and former IRA members themselves (some of whom have been interviewed).
Deal?

As usual you speak a lot of sense Jet whilst others can only keep accusing people of hate which is childish and provocative. Your posts are always reasoned and well expressed, without the need for personal insults, so keep on being the superior poster you are. Many of us enjoy reading your posts.

Joey states in one breath that the law states that the onus of responsibility is on the prosecution and then completely contradicts himself when continuously expecting you to provide proof to defend your clearly knowledgeable opinions. Corbyn’s suspect history is well documented and it is enough for many to have concerns about him. If some want to continue to ignore that and see him through rose-tinted glasses that is their problem.

We have such a crap ‘choice’ of future leaders of our country that we could end up with a likely terrorist sympathiser as priminister and we should all be concerned about that and question him at every opportunity. It would be grossly irresponsible and undemocratic to do anything else. Politics is not a game and most certainly should never be largely a popularity contest.

[Kizzy]

As usual you speak a lot of sense Jet whilst others can only keep accusing people of hate which is childish and provocative. Your posts are always reasoned and well expressed, without the need for personal insults, so keep on being the superior poster you are. Many of us enjoy reading your posts.

Joey states in one breath that the law states that the onus of responsibility is on the prosecution and then completely contradicts himself when continuously expecting you to provide proof to defend your clearly knowledgeable opinions. Corbyn’s suspect history is well documented and it is enough for many to have concerns about him. If some want to continue to ignore that and see him through rose-tinted glasses that is their problem.

We have such a crap ‘choice’ of future leaders of our country that we could end up with a likely terrorist sympathiser as priminister and we should all be concerned about that and question him at every opportunity. It would be grossly irresponsible and undemocratic to do anything else. Politics is not a game and most certainly should never be largely a popularity contest.

I see nothing... Where is this well documented proof?
Just a lot of heresay :/

[joeysteele]

You just repeat the same things over and over and don't respond to anything else I say in my individual posts.
If you insist it is clear I know nothing, then why are you so rattled?
Why are you wasting you time on me?
He has been interviewed, actually, and refused to condemn the IRA by name five times in a row, and then hung up. In another interview he refused to condemn them outright also. Do your research.
Carry on with your Corbyn support and your beliefs and leave me to carry on with what I know, and other things which others know, including a former First Minister and former IRA members themselves (some of whom have been interviewed).
Deal?

Jet,with respect you are sounding ridiculous.

I told you,if you had concrete evidence to present it to authorities.

I said he had never been prosecuted or even interviewed.
In relation to official authorities,which you knew perfectly well.
Not TV interviews,interviews by official authorities.
It's never happened.
Really you are not,in my view,making any reasoned argument here no facts,just your own hate for the man.

You are the one repeating yourself,not only here but on any thread you get the chance to as to Corbyn,where you always insist on repeating your own unsubstantiated serious accusations publicly as to him supporting terrorists and terrorist murdering of people.

I have watched his interviews, and he always says all terrorism and nurdee are wrong,yes,ALL terrorism and murder are wrong.
All means anyone and everything as to it.

Again you present nothing to back up your serious accusations.
It's not productive,to keep such hate, sadly you accuse others like me of not answering you but what you really mean is,I anyway am NOT saying what you want to hear.
I'm not saying what you want to hear because it would be wrong and unjust for me to do so.

However you never back up a single thing with a fact or conclusive evidence at all.
So get your own house,with respect,in order on this before you accuse others of dodging any of the issue.
There is nothing to dodge, Corbyn has never even been interviewed by any official investigative authority,never been charged with anything.

Because there is NOTHING to investigate him for.
It's not going to happen on just your say so either without convincing,conclusive substantiated evidence.
Something you don't see to understand while trying to infer you have it.

This is really ridiculous,however it's you repeating yourself,while presenting nothing really factual.
I only respond to you when you've responded to something I posted.
I really see no point on that as you post from a fixed hate with no desire to listen to the other person unless they accept at face value,with nothing else your serious unfounded accusations against Corbyn.
Thankfully it seems extremely few are willing to do that and I am certainly one,that without concrete evidence from yourself or official authorities ,I will never support or agree your current position,re Corbyn.

[jet]

Joey, there isn't much point talking with you any further. I have given you reasons for my stance but you obviously skim my posts and don't read them properly; or are deliberately ignoring a lot of what I am saying for your own reasons. There is no need to repeat yourself again, I completely get your lawyer like, dry, emotionless take on my position.

[jet]

As usual you speak a lot of sense Jet whilst others can only keep accusing people of hate which is childish and provocative. Your posts are always reasoned and well expressed, without the need for personal insults, so keep on being the superior poster you are. Many of us enjoy reading your posts.

Joey states in one breath that the law states that the onus of responsibility is on the prosecution and then completely contradicts himself when continuously expecting you to provide proof to defend your clearly knowledgeable opinions. Corbyn’s suspect history is well documented and it is enough for many to have concerns about him. If some want to continue to ignore that and see him through rose-tinted glasses that is their problem.

We have such a crap ‘choice’ of future leaders of our country that we could end up with a likely terrorist sympathiser as priminister and we should all be concerned about that and question him at every opportunity. It would be grossly irresponsible and undemocratic to do anything else. Politics is not a game and most certainly should never be largely a popularity contest.

Exactly. As if I'm going to reveal personal information about other people on a public forum...and how could I provide proof? I don't have a signed confession from Corbyn I'm afraid. It's just ridiculous for anyone to ask that.
As for what I did say - I don't care who believes it and who doesn't, it was enough for me to just say it, as I've pointed out to Joey - how many times now? - but that hasn't sunk in.
....and you have made many very good points here Brillo in this post.

[Livia]

Joey, there isn't much point talking with you any further. I have given you reasons for my stance but you obviously skim my posts and don't read them properly; or are deliberately ignoring a lot of what I am saying for your own reasons. There is no need to repeat yourself again, I completely get your lawyer like, dry, emotionless take on my position.

I'm a lawyer, Jet. Trust me... we're sometimes willing to listen to all sides.

[jet]

I'm a lawyer, Jet. Trust me... we're sometimes willing to listen to all sides.

Ah, but you are Livia the lawyer, one of the good un's. :laugh: :love:

[Livia]

Ah, but you are Livia the lawyer, one of the good un's. :laugh: :love:

Thank you... you poor, misguided fool... x

[jet]

Thank you... you poor, misguided fool... x

:joker:

[joeysteele]

I'm a lawyer, Jet. Trust me... we're sometimes willing to listen to all sides.


So am I actually, as a lawyer, you should know and stand up for your profession that evidence,substantiated evidence is needed to accuse people of serious wrongdoing.

Have you got concrete evidence that will stand up with the authorities as to Corbyn.
Are do you support accusations of serious nature branded about generally.

Of course you also make it clear you hate Corbyn too so it doesn't surprise me, since you termed the left terrorist supporting red nazis in the past, that you will forget rule of law on this.

In order to appear to support someone making unsubstantiated accusations on a public forum,against a major UK party leader,just because you appear to hate that leader too,(also in fact his party and particularly people on the left of politics since you hated Miliband too).

As a lawyer YOU should know,,that is not and should not be acceptable to make such unsubstantiated serious accusations,and God help the UK if it ever were acceptable as right too.

It is fine to state someone thinks someone has done wrong but unless they can prove same,that's all it is,a thought from them,not substantiated fact.
You make a big play on telling others they are wrong and where's their proof.
When it suits you it seems as to someone you detest,evidence and proof appear to go out the window.

You know something too,years ago, you always guided me even on simple posting on here,to make sure on here what I stated as fact could be backed up with real evidence or documented facts.
Odd how when it appears to suit your own likely hate and prejudice on an issue or against someone you hate,you choose to throw that out.

Well done.

[jet]

serious accusations


What serious accusations have I made that are untrue?

[Livia]

So am I actually, as a lawyer, you should know and stand up for your profession that evidence,substantiated evidence is needed to accuse people of serious wrongdoing.

Have you got concrete evidence that will stand up with the authorities as to Corbyn.
Are do you support accusations of serious nature branded about generally.

Of course you also make it clear you hate Corbyn too so it doesn't surprise me, since you termed the left terrorist supporting red nazis in the past, that you will forget rule of law on this.

In order to appear to support someone making unsubstantiated accusations on a public forum,against a major UK party leader,just because you appear to hate that leader too,(also in fact his party and particularly people on the left of politics since you hated Miliband too).

As a lawyer YOU should know,,that is not and should not be acceptable to make such unsubstantiated serious accusations,and God help the UK if it ever were acceptable as right too.

It is fine to state someone thinks someone has done wrong but unless they can prove same,that's all it is,a thought from them,not substantiated fact.
You make a big play on telling others they are wrong and where's their proof.
When it suits you it seems as to someone you detest,evidence and proof appear to go out the window.

You know something too,years ago, you always guided me even on simple posting on here,to make sure on here what I stated as fact could be backed up with real evidence or documented facts.
Odd how when it appears to suit your own likely hate and prejudice on an issue or against someone you hate,you choose to throw that out.

Well done.


Don't imagine that you are in a position to lecture me on my profession. Have you finished your time as a trainee yet? If you have, you only just have. You know nothing about me or my profession... And the only reason you feel free to post what you have is because we disagree politically. I used to think you'd make a great MP... offered you work experience in Westminster when you were at uni, do you remember? Then suddenly, I was your enemy. And the red Nazi thing? I have explained that to you so many times now... let it go, why don't you. Every time you have a ill-tempered swipe at me you drag it up. It's tiresome.

I don't have to produce evidence that Corbyn supported the IRA. It's a fact. And some people, myself included, will make sure anyone who didn't know, will know in future.

[user104658]

I don't have to produce evidence that Corbyn supported the IRA. It's a fact. And some people, myself included, will make sure anyone who didn't know, will know in future.

This doesn't really make sense Livia... the only way to prove that something is a fact is to provide evidence? And the only way to make sure that people who don't know that it is a fact will know in future... is to convince them that it is a fact WITH that evidence?

I mean, I'm not a lawyer nor have I ever studied law beyond Judge Judy... but I'm pretty sure that, in let's say a murder trial, you couldn't go in and say "Bob Smith committed murder! Evidence? I don't need to provide evidence your honour; it is a fact! Case closed."

I mean... it's also OK to even say "I know for a fact that Corbyn supported the IRA and nothing will change my opinion, I don't care if you believe it so I'm not going to provide any evidence." ... but in the second part of your post you're saying that you want to "make sure those that don't already know it, will know it" ... and for that, there needs to be at least one of two things:

1) Irrefutable evidence, or

2) A level of personal trust that means the person you are telling will believe you without evidence.


The latter... is really only something that can (or should) exist in the realms of family or very close friends... so I don't think it's applicable to TiBB. So you can state firmly that YOU know what you know about Corbyn (or anyone else), but you can't expect those things to be accepted "as fact" without providing any evidence. It just doesn't work, surely.

I mean... I personally believe that he did "support" the IRA in some ways. I don't believe that he necessarily believes in their ideologies but I do think he's a self-promoter with an agenda and supported them for other reasons / agendae. I think he does the same with feminism / trans rights today. So I find him utterly disingenuous but I think the idea that he actively condones or encourages murder or violence is a massive stretch and it would take significant irrefutable evidence for me to believe otherwise. A YouTube video of an angry Irish presenter shouting "DO YOU SPECIFICALLY CONDEMN THE IRA???" is not evidence. Jet telling us that members of his family knew things that he can't repeat, is also not evidence. So... him having some sort of genuine support for IRA violence is not a fact; it's a rumour that may or may not be true, that some people believe and some don't. Until it is proven, with evidence, it can never be "a fact".

[joeysteele]

Don't imagine that you are in a position to lecture me on my profession. Have you finished your time as a trainee yet? If you have, you only just have. You know nothing about me or my profession... And the only reason you feel free to post what you have is because we disagree politically. I used to think you'd make a great MP... offered you work experience in Westminster when you were at uni, do you remember? Then suddenly, I was your enemy. And the red Nazi thing? I have explained that to you so many times now... let it go, why don't you. Every time you have a ill-tempered swipe at me you drag it up. It's tiresome.

I don't have to produce evidence that Corbyn supported the IRA. It's a fact. And some people, myself included, will make sure anyone who didn't know, will know in future.


Are you for real,it takes 6 years to become a lawyer, it is 8 years since I started uni and was qualified in 2016.
Stop your nonsense on my qualifications and I didn't question your status,I said you ARE a lawyer.

It seems it's you who has a weak knowledge.


As to Corbyn,You have no evidence at all,no one has,as to Corbyn and you know it.
He could not get away with it ,and people like you wouldn't let him,you who claim to work in politics and for particularly the Conservatives,you would be able to present that evidence and certainly would against a political opponent,especially one you detest as much as Corbyn.

You said the red Nazi statement as to the left,I never reported it but your offensive post and it's content was removed.
If you didn't say anything wrong, a post would not be removed.
That's a fact.

Good grief,if you really had evidence against Corbyn,hating him as you do,you'd have it with the authorities.
You've got none,because there is none.
It's only likely hate for a leader of a party,a party you also dislike,with a section you look down on completely to calling them every name under the sun.

Furthermore,yes,you supported me when you thought me more to the right of politics.
Once I changed,you got at me as you do other decent people of the left.which culminated in that vile post,stating the left were Jewish hating,terrorist supporting red nazis.

It was removed Livia,taken away,for the reason of it being likely grossly offensive.
Dress it up all you like,it was your words.
You'd love it forgotten,I never have,I took you on as to it immediately at the time.
You still make similar jibes on at any opportunity.

Anyway,you hide on here and accuse publicly a legitimate leader of an established party of serious terrorist support for murders of innocent people.
However, You have no proof,there is none.
Have the courage of your own spite and get such evidence to the authorities if you have what no one else has,that is real evidence.
In law that's what has to be done before anyone can be PROVEN guilty of anything.

It seems possibly when it may suit your agenda,likely for someone you hate,the law of the land,can possibly take a back seat
Not for me it doesn't,the law is the law and it's wrong to spout accusations around with no facts,proof or evidence.
I believe that should be the case too 100%

[Livia]

Are you for real,it takes 6 years to become a lawyer, it is 8 years since I started uni and was qualified in 2016.
Stop your nonsense on my qualifications and I didn't question your status,I said you ARE a lawyer.

It seems it's you who has a weak knowledge.


As to Corbyn,You have no evidence at all,no one has,as to Corbyn and you know it.
He could not get away with it ,and people like you wouldn't let him,you who claim to work in politics and for particularly the Conservatives,you would be able to present that evidence and certainly would against a political opponent,especially one you detest as much as Corbyn.

You said the red Nazi statement as to the left,I never reported it but your offensive post and it's content was removed.
If you didn't say anything wrong, a post would not be removed.
That's a fact.

Good grief,if you really had evidence against Corbyn,hating him as you do,you'd have it with the authorities.
You've got none,because there is none.
It's only likely hate for a leader of a party,a party you also dislike,with a section you look down on completely to calling them every name under the sun.

Furthermore,yes,you supported me when you thought me more to the right of politics.
Once I changed,you got at me as you do other decent people of the left.which culminated in that vile post,stating the left were Jewish hating,terrorist supporting red nazis.

It was removed Livia,taken away,for the reason of it being likely grossly offensive.
Dress it up all you like,it was your words.
You'd love it forgotten,I never have,I took you on as to it immediately at the time.
You still make similar jibes on at any opportunity.

Anyway,you hide on here and accuse publicly a legitimate leader of an established party of serious terrorist support for murders of innocent people.
However, You have no proof,there is none.
Have the courage of your own spite and get such evidence to the authorities if you have what no one else has,that is real evidence.
In law that's what has to be done before anyone can be PROVEN guilty of anything.

It seems possibly when it may suit your agenda,likely for someone you hate,the law of the land,can possibly take a back seat
Not for me it doesn't,the law is the law and it's wrong to spout accusations around with no facts,proof or evidence.
I believe that should be the case too 100%


I'm not entertaining anymore of your rude, aggressive, half-literate waffle joey. I'm not even reading this. Try to ignore me. Please. I have no interest in engaging with you further. And please don't vote for me in any more poles.... it's kind of weird considering your usual approach to me.

[Livia]

This doesn't really make sense Livia... the only way to prove that something is a fact is to provide evidence? And the only way to make sure that people who don't know that it is a fact will know in future... is to convince them that it is a fact WITH that evidence?

I mean, I'm not a lawyer nor have I ever studied law beyond Judge Judy... but I'm pretty sure that, in let's say a murder trial, you couldn't go in and say "Bob Smith committed murder! Evidence? I don't need to provide evidence your honour; it is a fact! Case closed."

I mean... it's also OK to even say "I know for a fact that Corbyn supported the IRA and nothing will change my opinion, I don't care if you believe it so I'm not going to provide any evidence." ... but in the second part of your post you're saying that you want to "make sure those that don't already know it, will know it" ... and for that, there needs to be at least one of two things:

1) Irrefutable evidence, or

2) A level of personal trust that means the person you are telling will believe you without evidence.


The latter... is really only something that can (or should) exist in the realms of family or very close friends... so I don't think it's applicable to TiBB. So you can state firmly that YOU know what you know about Corbyn (or anyone else), but you can't expect those things to be accepted "as fact" without providing any evidence. It just doesn't work, surely.

I mean... I personally believe that he did "support" the IRA in some ways. I don't believe that he necessarily believes in their ideologies but I do think he's a self-promoter with an agenda and supported them for other reasons / agendae. I think he does the same with feminism / trans rights today. So I find him utterly disingenuous but I think the idea that he actively condones or encourages murder or violence is a massive stretch and it would take significant irrefutable evidence for me to believe otherwise. A YouTube video of an angry Irish presenter shouting "DO YOU SPECIFICALLY CONDEMN THE IRA???" is not evidence. Jet telling us that members of his family knew things that he can't repeat, is also not evidence. So... him having some sort of genuine support for IRA violence is not a fact; it's a rumour that may or may not be true, that some people believe and some don't. Until it is proven, with evidence, it can never be "a fact".


No offence to you, TS... but I'm really tired of this discussion. I'd like to discuss this with you more, maybe on another day and another thread. But not this one.

[jet]

Until it is proven, with evidence, it can never be "a fact".

Well can we close this with: to some people here, including me, it IS a fact - I know it to be a fact; others believe it may well be a fact; some others are unsure either way and those who are left (no pun intended) absolutely refuse to even consider it for whatever reason.

[DemolitionRed]

Those who believe it may be a fact but don't have the evidence to back it up, can only guess and the only sort of people who guess are those who wound like it to be a fact.

[Kizzy]

So am I actually, as a lawyer, you should know and stand up for your profession that evidence,substantiated evidence is needed to accuse people of serious wrongdoing.

Have you got concrete evidence that will stand up with the authorities as to Corbyn.
Are do you support accusations of serious nature branded about generally.

Of course you also make it clear you hate Corbyn too so it doesn't surprise me, since you termed the left terrorist supporting red nazis in the past, that you will forget rule of law on this.

In order to appear to support someone making unsubstantiated accusations on a public forum,against a major UK party leader,just because you appear to hate that leader too,(also in fact his party and particularly people on the left of politics since you hated Miliband too).

As a lawyer YOU should know,,that is not and should not be acceptable to make such unsubstantiated serious accusations,and God help the UK if it ever were acceptable as right too.

It is fine to state someone thinks someone has done wrong but unless they can prove same,that's all it is,a thought from them,not substantiated fact.
You make a big play on telling others they are wrong and where's their proof.
When it suits you it seems as to someone you detest,evidence and proof appear to go out the window.

You know something too,years ago, you always guided me even on simple posting on here,to make sure on here what I stated as fact could be backed up with real evidence or documented facts.
Odd how when it appears to suit your own likely hate and prejudice on an issue or against someone you hate,you choose to throw that out.

Well done.

Well said Joey, you are as usual the voice of reason and clarity in any given scenario and thank goodness for you otherwise we'd have no end of half truths and untruths being passed off as fact.
I know I'm forever harping back to quotes but this one is apt at this juncture
'In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act'
More and more I am reminded of this when it comes to the ever more apparent groupthink we are subjected to.

Never have I witnessed you ever be anything other than civil in the face of at times great provocation, if your assertive attitude in defence of your professional opinion is deliberately misconstrued then that is not your issue.
As always your posts are concise to the point and perfectly legible as well as understandable. In any poll you get my vote!

[Withano]

Those who believe it may be a fact but don't have the evidence to back it up, can only guess and the only sort of people who guess are those who wound like it to be a fact.

Yeh I agree with this. Wilfully needing something to be a fact still doesn't make it a fact!

[Ammi]

Oh I get that entirely, but there's surely plenty of room in our hearts for detesting lots of people, especially the shower of vipers in politics. The horrible situation at the end of the day, is that in most cases anyone who rises through the ranks in politics is going to be a ruthless sh**.

But then what are voters to do? Surely all that can really be done is to try to vote for a party based on their policies and hope that they adhere to them (even though that's highly unlikely). In most of the UK for anyone who is wholeheartedly against current Tory policies and the things that are happening to certain demographics in the UK because of those policies, there is only ONE alternative to vote for... no matter who their leader is. I'm lucky enough not to have to make that call when I vote but if I was in England - although as I've said before I am now no Corbyn supporter at all - I would simply HAVE to support Labour because there is no viable alternative to the Tories... and the very real effects that Tory policies are having come before any personal dislike of a shady politician.

..yeah, I’m really not sure, given the choices of the two main parties..who I will vote for atm...hmmm, I’m thinking that it won’t be either of those main parties which I guess will be a bit of a dud vote I know but I’m just not on board with either party or party leader to feel anything other...just touching on something in the thread, which is the proof thing...I guess in the absence of given proof for certain things, we start to look at things like integrity of the person conveying ‘their truth’ as well..and also that same integrity of the person being discussed to help is in what we feel we see as highly possible or less possible, you know..?..I’m not sure if that makes sense, but well it’s Saturday morning so...:laugh:...anyways, integrity is something I struggle to see in Jeremy Corbyn and like you, TS...what I see more is an opportunist and I feel disingenuity ..not tha I feel any integrity from Theresa May either so there lies the rub...obviously it’s about a party’s whole policies as well but the leader of that party is a big part of guiding and fulfilling those policies...so obviously ‘believing in’ someone to make good decisions and then to‘deliver’ as it were, is very important...I guess what I’m thinking atm is so long as I vote for one because that one might be a better option than the other....?...then does that just reduce chances of ever getting party leaders who do have high integrity because I’ve gone with the ‘make do’ option of all that has been presented...it feels that the only way to be given better options in my vote is just to say no, and refuse both of them with what’s being offered to us...:laugh:...I’m not sure if either becoming more centre or of a third party becoming a real contender and giving them a run for their money will ever happen in my lifetime because these things do take time etc...but for my children and to make those things even a possibility for them..(..Or for their children...)...I just feel that I have to say no to both in my vote and come back to me when you offer something less rubbish and when either of you get closer to what what is needed to get it all back on track...

[Kizzy]

..yeah, I’m really not sure, given the choices of the two main parties..who I will vote for atm...hmmm, I’m thinking that it won’t be either of those main parties which I guess will be a bit of a dud vote I know but I’m just not on board with either party or party leader to feel anything other...just touching on something in the thread, which is the proof thing...I guess in the absence of given proof for certain things, we start to look at things like integrity of the person conveying ‘their truth’ as well..and also that same integrity of the person being discussed to help is in what we feel we see as highly possible or less possible, you know..?..I’m not sure if that makes sense, but well it’s Saturday morning so...:laugh:...anyways, integrity is something I struggle to see in Jeremy Corbyn and like you, TS...what I see more is an opportunist and I feel disingenuity ..not tha I feel any integrity from Theresa May either so there lies the rub...obviously it’s about a party’s whole policies as well but the leader of that party is a big part of guiding and fulfilling those policies...so obviously ‘believing in’ someone to make good decisions and then to‘deliver’ as it were, is very important...I guess what I’m thinking atm is so long as I vote for one because that one might be a better option than the other....?...then does that just reduce chances of ever getting party leaders who do have high integrity because I’ve gone with the ‘make do’ option of all that has been presented...it feels that the only way to be given better options in my vote is just to say no, and refuse both of them with what’s being offered to us...:laugh:...I’m not sure if either becoming more centre or of a third party becoming a real contender and giving them a run for their money will ever happen in my lifetime because these things do take time etc...but for my children and to make those things even a possibility for them..(..Or for their children...)...I just feel that I have to say no to both in my vote and come back to me when you offer something less rubbish and when either of you get closer to what what is needed to get it all back on track...

No, there is no looking at the integrity of the person the burden of proof is there and should there be a case to be heard then there will be a weight of evidence, last year we were encouraged to 'ignore experts'... Why? because that is very specifically the facts on any given issue, yet it rarely corresponds with what we're told on topics such as child poverty, homelessness or mortality rates.

Look at the issue at hand, the 'Troubles', were those in positions of power and influence jailing innocent people? Have the newspapers been asked to retract lies (the Nicola Sturgeon flag story). was the PM not criticised for here 'disingenuous' use of NHS data by one of her on MPs?.. And then there's Trump!

I think that more than equates to the continued need for facts that can be substantiated, as we can't and shouldn't be expected to make considered decisions on the opinions of others.

[jet]

No, there is no looking at the integrity of the person the burden of proof is there and should there be a case to be heard then there will be a weight of evidence,

Anyone who insists that Corbyn wasn't a supporter and friend of the terrorist IRA, is being dishonest with themselves and quite frankly, looking pretty dim. There is a wealth of facts and opinions out there to the contrary....and really to say "They are all lies", is just saying "I won't believe anything I don't want to beleive".
I have posted many links in the past, but I don't think they are often clicked on, so... here are some samples of many:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abbott-declared-support-for-ira-defeat-of-britain-rp79dvvmk

Diane Abbott backed victory for the IRA in an interview with a pro-republican journal, The Sunday Times has found.
Abbott, who will become home secretary if Labour wins the election, said in the 1984 interview that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
The interview was found during research by The Sunday Times in Irish and republican archives

The same files disclose that the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, personally led or took part in at least 72 separate events or actions with Sinn Fein and pro-republican groups during the years of the IRA’s armed struggle — far more than previously known.
These included a petition to Downing Street on behalf of Hugh Doherty, a member of the IRA’s Balcombe Street gang convicted of killing seven people, and protests against the extradition of Dessie Ellis, a top IRA bomb maker who has denied links to about 50 deaths.

The archives also show the main IRA-sympathising groups in Britain held private strategy meetings in Corbyn’s former constituency office — owned by the Labour Party and part-funded by taxpayers from his MP’s allowance.

The interview was published in Labour and Ireland, the journal of the Labour committee on Ireland (LCI), a small pro-republican support group in the party that operated at the height of the IRA’s armed struggle in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The archives disclose that LCI was chaired for some of the period by John McDonnell, now the shadow chancellor. Corbyn and Abbott were also regular speakers..
There were close links between LCI and the Troops Out Movement [Tom], another IRA-sympathising body with which Corbyn was closely associated. He spoke at more than 20 Troops Out events or meetings.

Corbyn has claimed he was seeking peace. However, Seamus Mallon, deputy to John Hume, the former Social Democratic and Labour Party leader and the architect of the peace process, told The Sunday Times: “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.”

https://www.irishnews.com/news/politicalnews/2017/05/22/news/james-brokenshire-condemns-jeremy-corbyn-over-ira-sympathies--1032915/

Secretary of State James Brokenshire has rounded on Jeremy Corbyn for his "IRA sympathies".
Mr Brokenshire accused the Labour leader and his party colleagues, shadow chancellor John McDonnell and shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, of having "extremely worrying views" about IRA terrorism.
But Mr Brokenshire - who prior to the calling of the General Election had been facilitating talks between Stormont's Sinn Féin and the DUP in a bid to restore powersharing - demanded Mr Corbyn and his top team "come clean about their true attitudes towards IRA terrorism".
He accused Mr Corbyn of having a "long political career of sympathy for the IRA cause".


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

His support for the IRA alone should have sunk Labour. In the 1980s, as the this ruthless mob murdered, kidnapped, assaulted and tortured people, Corbyn and his allies – including Diane Abbott and John McDonnell – supported the cause and befriended terrorists. The possibility that we might have a chancellor who once said: “it was the bombs and bullets… that brought Britain to the negotiating table”, or a home secretary who said that “every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us”, is madness; a sign of these unstable political times.


A week after the Brighton bombing, Corbyn invited Gerry Adams to the Commons.
Ireland’s Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said that, according to the evidence he has seen, Adams was not only an IRA member, but sat on its army council.
Corbyn was later arrested while on a pro-IRA protest at the trial of the bomber who had killed five people and injured a further 31. He also wrote for and supported a socialist magazine which gloated about the bombing and threatened Margaret Thatcher with further attacks.


Even Labour sympathisers found it hard to stomach Corbyn’s infatuation with the IRA. A 1996 editorial in the left-leaning Guardian, of all places, denounces his “romantic support for Irish Republicans” and states unequivocally: “Mr Corbyn's actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so”.


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”.


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecency.


There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms.


Fifteen years previously, Corbyn was a member of the board of Labour Briefing, a fringe magazine for diehard leftists that unequivocally supported the IRA’s bombing campaign. Corbyn organised the magazine’s mailing-list and was a regular speaker at its events. In December 1984, the magazine“reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican
movement”.....Moreover...“It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”. .
This was published a few weeks after the Brighton bombing.

Jeremy Corbyn didn’t help bring peace to Northern Ireland, he helped delay it by enabling those who bore primary responsibility for the violence. Now he and his supporters wish to rewrite history, the better to pretend Corbyn was somehow ‘ahead of the curve’. He was no such thing. His vision of peace did not advocate compromise and dialogue. If it had he might have spent more – or some – time speaking with Unionists and other parties with whose analysis he disagreed. But his vision did not do this and so he did not ‘engage’ with anyone in this fashion. No amount of whitewash can cover up this stain upon his record, his worldview and his judgement.

[jet]

Bump.
See above for Corbyn's support of the IRAs murder of innocents.

[jaxie]

There is obviously some sort of connection between Adams and Corbyn. https://news.sky.com/story/sinn-feins-gerry-adams-backs-outstanding-jeremy-corbyn-for-prime-minister-11236645
It's quite a historic image that sky are posting here.

[jet]

There is obviously some sort of connection between Adams and Corbyn. https://news.sky.com/story/sinn-feins-gerry-adams-backs-outstanding-jeremy-corbyn-for-prime-minister-11236645
It's quite a historic image that sky are posting here.

Absolutely.

A week after the Brighton bombing, Corbyn invited Gerry Adams to the Commons.
Ireland’s Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said that, according to the evidence he has seen, Adams was not only an IRA member, but sat on its army council.
Corbyn was later arrested while on a pro-IRA protest at the trial of the bomber who had killed five people and injured a further 31.

Re the article you have linked:

Adams says:

"He and (former London mayor) Ken Livingstone and others kept faith and they were the people who said, when others said no, 'talk'.

The only thing Corbyn 'talked' about to Sinn Fein and the IRA was how to get the 'BRITS OUT' of N. Ireland, despite the people of N. Ireland voting democratically to stay as part of the UK - Catholic and Protestant.

Mr Livingstone is currently suspended from the Labour Party following his comments about anti-Semitism, Hitler and Zionism.

Says it all really, the people who cosied up to the IRA terrorists.

[jet]

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

No, I don't believe that, I believe in non - censored discussion. However, with reference to the thread 'Here's something about Jacob Rees-Mogg'...it is clear we are not allowed to discuss 'the other side of the coin' and all references to the other side (Corbyn) are promptly deleted.
So why weren't all references to the Tories and May in this thread deleted, as it is about 'Corbyn and his leftist clique'?
And in future, will all references in a thread to any other than the politician in question be deleted? The rules on this forum are becoming very confusing indeed.

[Tom4784]

No, I don't believe that, I believe in non - censored discussion. However, with reference to the thread 'Here's something about Jacob Rees-Mogg'...it is clear we are not allowed to discuss 'the other side of the coin' and all references to the other side (Corbyn) are promptly deleted.
So why weren't all references to the Tories and May in this thread deleted, as it is about 'Corbyn and his leftist clique'?
And in future, will all references in a thread to any other than the politician in question be deleted? The rules on this forum are becoming very confusing indeed.

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

[jet]

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

Can you explain how its off topic to make comparisons between one possible future PM and another?

As for baiting, that came from you and others before there were any posts about Corbyn.

[Tom4784]

Can you explain how its off topic to make comparisons between one possible future PM and another?

As for baiting, that came from you and others before there were any posts about Corbyn.

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

[jaxie]

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

Let's be accurate. Reese Mogg was being called scum and rancid and all sorts. I pointed out people would find that unacceptable if it were Corbyn. That is hardly any attack. It's fact.

[Tom4784]

Let's be accurate. Reese Mogg was being called scum and rancid and all sorts. I pointed out people would find that unacceptable if it were Corbyn. That is hardly any attack. It's fact.

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

[jet]

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

[jet]

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

Well then delete the non - productive posts, including the non - productive ones like SCUM - (but you obviously think SCUM is productive.)
Why was Corbyn not allowed to be mentioned at all? Every reference to him was deleted.

[Tom4784]

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

That's not baiting, that's my opinion, he is scum and I explained why I thought that later in the topic. If you can't accept that and decided to help in taking the thread off topic then that's your problem.

You can't just brand opinions you dislike as baiting. If you disliked me calling him scum then you should have argued the point without trying to derail the topic into another Corbyn topic when he didn't have any relevance to the topic.

[jaxie]

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

Except that's not what I said at all is it? You just made that up. :nono:

[jet]

That's not baiting, that's my opinion, he is scum and I explained why I thought that later in the topic. If you can't accept that and decided to help in taking the thread off topic then that's your problem.

You can't just brand opinions you dislike as baiting. If you disliked me calling him scum then you should have argued the point without trying to derail the topic into another Corbyn topic when he didn't have any relevance to the topic.

That's fine, if the opinions on Corbyn were also allowed, which they weren't.

Of course he had relevance. The discussion of a possible future PM is always going to produce a comparison to another possible future PM especially when the one in question is being called scum and other denigrating names. This IS a discussion forum with human beings posting in it, isn't it?
So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance, is that right?

[GoldHeart]

Whether you agree with politics or not,somebody has to run this country .
It's democracy . When the next election rolls around I think the Tories will get in AGAIN :facepalm:

I know some people don't bother voting ,but I don't like the attitude of "ohh well all MP'S are as bad as each other so I'm not voting" . Somebody still has to win :joker: , so you might as well vote for the best of a bad bunch and imo that option is Labour .

[jet]

I'm glad I don't live in the UK and have to decide. I wouldn't vote for either at present.

[jaxie]

I'm glad I don't live in the UK and have to decide. I wouldn't vote for either at present.

Therein lays my problem.

[Tom4784]

Well then delete the non - productive posts, including the non - productive ones like SCUM - (but you obviously think SCUM is productive.)
Why was Corbyn not allowed to be mentioned at all? Every reference to him was deleted.

My opinion is perfectly valid, I know you dislike other people's opinions but no amount of reaching is going to change the fact that I'm as every bit entitlted to call a politcian scum as you are to call another a terrorist sympathiser.

The Corbyn posts were deleted because, like I said before, they were mainly a way of attacking forum member's opinions by using someone you think they like. It's a topic about how a politician voted on in various issues and it got dragged into being another mud slinging match by the usual suspects.

Like I said before, if you had a problem with my terminology you could have argued against it without derailing the thread.

[Tom4784]

Except that's not what I said at all is it? You just made that up. :nono:

That, my dear, was not a quote but an overall impression of the posts that were deleted.

[Tom4784]

Let's put it this way, if this thread suddenly became overrun with jibes about May or Rees-Moggs aimed at other members as a way to derail the thread and cause drama then it would be deleted just like the stuff in the other thread was.

[jet]

My opinion is perfectly valid, I know you dislike other people's opinions but no amount of reaching is going to change the fact that I'm as every bit entitlted to call a politcian scum as you are to call another a terrorist sympathiser.

The Corbyn posts were deleted because, like I said before, they were mainly a way of attacking forum member's opinions by using someone you think they like. It's a topic about how a politician voted on in various issues and it got dragged into being another mud slinging match by the usual suspects.

Like I said before, if you had a problem with my terminology you could have argued against it without derailing the thread.

There you go again, baiting.
And if you had a problem with anyone's terminology you could have argued against it without getting posts deleted or agreeing with posts being deleted.

[Tom4784]

I've explained myself, if you're going to strain to see baiting everywhere then nothing I'm gonna say is going to change that. I'm done on this matter. You've got your explanation and I'm not getting dragged into an argument about this.

[jet]

Let's put it this way, if this thread suddenly became overrun with jibes about May or Rees-Moggs aimed at other members as a way to derail the thread and cause drama then it would be deleted just like the stuff in the other thread was.

Most of the posts weren't aimed at other members, they were criticising Corbyn. Yet they were ALL deleted.

[jet]

I've explained myself, if you're going to strain to see baiting everywhere then nothing I'm gonna say is going to change that. I'm done on this matter. You've got your explanation and I'm not getting dragged into an argument about this.

I think its important that this point is cleared up:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.

[jaxie]

That, my dear, was not a quote but an overall impression of the posts that were deleted.

An impression that was not true. And please don't patronise me.


Come on Dezzy answer jet’s question.

[Brillopad]

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

Who on earth do you think you are kidding. If one method of shut-down isn’t working just accuse posters of baiting instead. How very Convenient!!!

[Brillopad]

I've explained myself, if you're going to strain to see baiting everywhere then nothing I'm gonna say is going to change that. I'm done on this matter. You've got your explanation and I'm not getting dragged into an argument about this.

I see shut-down everywhere I see you. You created the argument but can’t back up your allegations. The desperation is astounding.

[Brillopad]

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

Spot on jet.

[jaxie]

I see shut-down everywhere I see you. You created the argument but can’t back up your allegations. The desperation is astounding.

:clap1:

Come on mods, give us some clarity.

Why aren't we allowed to mention Corbyn but Dezzy can call another MP scum?

[Tom4784]

Like I'vve said twice in this thread, if you think it's okay to call a politician a terrorist sympathiser then you can't get all uppity about me calling a politician scum when it comes to a voting history of voting against the interests of the most vulnerable people in our society.

If you really have an issue with this, come talk to me over PM where there's no audience to perform for.

[jet]

Like I'vve said twice in this thread, if you think it's okay to call a politician a terrorist sympathiser then you can't get all uppity about me calling a politician scum when it comes to a voting history of voting against the interests of the most vulnerable people in our society.

If you really have an issue with this, come talk to me over PM where there's no audience to perform for.

That is nothing to do with what is being asked. I just want an answer to this question as do others:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.

[bots]

Like I'vve said twice in this thread, if you think it's okay to call a politician a terrorist sympathiser then you can't get all uppity about me calling a politician scum when it comes to a voting history of voting against the interests of the most vulnerable people in our society.

If you really have an issue with this, come talk to me over PM where there's no audience to perform for.

the difference is that factually, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, he has supported terrorists in their endeavours. Scum is generalised derogatory term that is thrown about without meaning or reasoned thought

[Tom4784]

That is nothing to do with what is being asked. I just want an answer to this question as do others:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.

Your example doesn't reflect the reality of that thread.

People weren't making comparisons, they were basically saying that you can't have a negative opinion about Reese Moggs when 'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw.

That thread was a thread about one politician's voting history but it was on the verge of descending into the typical mud slinging match that ruins many threads on this section, that is why those posts were deleted, they were mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. If you wanted to make a comparison about voting histories of both politicians to draw conclusions and parallels between the politicians then that wouldn't have been deleted. Those posts got deleted mostly because they were simply meant to derail the thread from the original discussion.

Plus if you want to go on about Corbyn murdering babies then you've already got this lovely nine page thread to do it in. Why turn every thread into the same argument that you've been having in this one for weeks? It's pointless for every topic to eventually turn into the same old argument.

[Tom4784]

the difference is that factually, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, he has supported terrorists in their endeavours. Scum is generalised derogatory term that is thrown about without meaning or reasoned thought

Let's be real here, would anyone that took an issue with me calling Rees-Moggs scum be as offended if I said that Corbyn was scum? I ****ing think not. I'd probably got them all quoting me saying how much they agreed with what I was saying.

It's not about the fact I called him scum, it's about the fact I called someone they like scum so I completely refute that point because it's hypocritical because they would not bat an eyelid if I said the same about someone they hated.

If you are going to call someone a sympathiser, you can't call offense to someone calling a politician you happen to like scum. That's called hypocrisy.

[jaxie]

Your example doesn't reflect the reality of that thread.

People weren't making comparisons, they were basically saying that you can't have a negative opinion about Reese Moggs when 'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw.

That thread was a thread about one politician's voting history but it was on the verge of descending into the typical mud slinging match that ruins many threads on this section, that is why those posts were deleted, they were mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. If you wanted to make a comparison about voting histories of both politicians to draw conclusions and parallels between the politicians then that wouldn't have been deleted. Those posts got deleted mostly because they were simply meant to derail the thread from the original discussion.

Plus if you want to go on about Corbyn murdering babies then you've already got this lovely nine page thread to do it in. Why turn every thread into the same argument that you've been having in this one for weeks? It's pointless for every topic to eventually turn into the same old argument.

Except it isn't true Dezzy. It wasn't mud slinging at all. Why are you trying to make things up? The only person calling anyone scum was you. Yet you are implying similar language was used towards Corbyn. It wasn't. In fact there is no logical reason that you removed all those posts. So can you or one of the other mods answer the question about the new rules?

[Tom4784]

Except it isn't true Dezzy. It wasn't mud slinging at all. Why are you trying to make thing is? The only person calling anyone scum was you. Yet you are implying similar language was used towards Corbyn. It wasn't. In fact there is no logical reason that you removed all those posts.

There's no point trying to tell me different, I can read those posts whenever I please. You've got your answer and I'm not going to rise to the bait of an argument. I've explained fully and no matter what I say you won't accept it so I'm not wasting any more time explaining it. You have your answer and it's not going to change.

[jet]

Your example doesn't reflect the reality of that thread.

People weren't making comparisons, they were basically saying that you can't have a negative opinion about Reese Moggs when 'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw.

That thread was a thread about one politician's voting history but it was on the verge of descending into the typical mud slinging match that ruins many threads on this section, that is why those posts were deleted, they were mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. If you wanted to make a comparison about voting histories of both politicians to draw conclusions and parallels between the politicians then that wouldn't have been deleted. Those posts got deleted mostly because they were simply meant to derail the thread from the original discussion.

Plus if you want to go on about Corbyn murdering babies then you've already got this lovely nine page thread to do it in. Why turn every thread into the same argument that you've been having in this one for weeks? It's pointless for every topic to eventually turn into the same old argument.

But that works both ways. If you and others had discussed the policies of Reese Moggs instead of slinging inflammatory remarks around initially, then nobody would have felt the need to make similar comparisons to Corbyn - the other side of the coin as a possible future PM.
YOU and others set the precedent and waved the red flag and there is no fair reason then why those posts were removed. I had no intentions of derailing the thread, I was giving MY opinion, which apparently you and others can do, but I and others can't.

If a politician is criticised in a thread and inflammatory language used, it is forbidden to respond to that? To date, I thought it is only members who aren't allowed to be openly criticised. That has now changed.

You were involved in this so can a mod who wasn't please clarify what these new rules are?

[jet]

Let's be real here, would anyone that took an issue with me calling Rees-Moggs scum be as offended if I said that Corbyn was scum? I ****ing think not. I'd probably got them all quoting me saying how much they agreed with what I was saying.

It's not about the fact I called him scum, it's about the fact I called someone they like scum so I completely refute that point because it's hypocritical because they would not bat an eyelid if I said the same about someone they hated.

If you are going to call someone a sympathiser, you can't call offense to someone calling a politician you happen to like scum. That's called hypocrisy.

But nobody called for your opinion to be deleted, nor should it be. We had a right to respond though, or thought we had, but all our opinions were deleted. That's the difference.

[jet]

'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw......

.....Plus if you want to go on about Corbyn murdering babies then you've already got this lovely nine page thread to do it in. .

How *********g cold and heartless can anyone be? You can delete my words, but you unfortunately can't delete my images of dead children and babies and you certainly can't delete their parents images of their dead children and babies blown apart by the Corbyn supporting IRA. NEVER. Be flippant and dismissive while those little innocent ones lie cold in their graves and their parents would give anything to have them and hold them again, but you can only delete so much, you can't delete the truth, no matter how much you wish to.

[Brillopad]

There's no point trying to tell me different, I can read those posts whenever I please. You've got your answer and I'm not going to rise to the bait of an argument. I've explained fully and no matter what I say you won't accept it so I'm not wasting any more time explaining it. You have your answer and it's not going to change.

You have explained nothing - just attempted to justify your biased modding. It as controlling as any politician I have seen on either side. Those in glass houses and all that.

[Vicky.]

I think its important that this point is cleared up:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.

OK I will try and explain here but I am genuinely half asleep so excuse typos and any nonsense. Not even sure why I am replying now, but I can't sleep and am reading through the deleted stuff all over.

So there have been many many reports and complaints about every thread in this section being turned into a Corbyn one. I think its a valid complaint, I see it everywhere and I do think its ruining the forum. I mean, the Hitler thread a few days back was almost immediately turned into a Corbyn thread. Then all of the Corbyn stuff was deleted and people still kept trying to bring Corbyn into it. Deleted a few times actually and still people tried and tried, it was tedious, as is moderating this section in general ATM. Its just really getting beyond a joke now and yes, we will be deleting random Corbyn crap thats posted in irrelevant areas.

IF there was anywhere near the amount of that for, say May/Mogg/Trump, we would do exactly the same thing. If there was a group of posters constantly turning every thread into a thread about May/Mogg/Trump/whoever then it would be the same.

Its not censoring negative views on Corbyn because 1. This thread is proof that negative stuff is allowed, and there are other threads also. If there was censorship, then these would be gone. 2. If there were any members bringing up positive Corbyn stuff in every thread that would also be deleted. And 3. Its absolute rubbish that we would try to censor one side in the first place. If we silenced all of one opinion, this forum would be dead as there would be nothing to actually debate (read, argue :laugh:) about. What good is an echo chamber. Of course noone wants that, thats ridiculous.

Its just got far too over the top now and does sometimes come across as baiting, but sometimes as a bit of an obsession.

Though I do agree that maybe it was a bit harsh removing mention of Corbyn from the Rees Mogg thread, but again, this has been done in reaction to the ridiculous wave of Corbyn nonsense that is sweeping this section from the same few members. Also the removed posts were not exactly anything to do with the thread topic. There was no mention of the thread topic in the removed posts, it was all very much like a random 'Corbyn Is A Very Bad Man' and while yes, many of the posts on that thread were basically 'Mogg Is a Very Bad Man'..thats actually what the topic was about.

I mean, if Corbyn had to be brought up, even something like 'I acknowledge the video. I do think Corbyn is just as bad though. Neither would be good PMs' or 'I think Mogg is great, that video is propaganda. He would be a much better PM than Corbyn'. But honestly, its at the stage where even that could be problematic as what would happen is the Corbyn bit would be quoted, more Corbyn stuff posted, and then it will just totally be a Corbyn thread between the same couple of members and anyone coming in to actually discuss the thread topic, will see all of the Corbyn stuff and not even bother posting as whats the point? Seriously, this has to end. This section is just a ****ing mess and getting worse by the day. Its not always negative Corbyn posts deleted either, when people do bring up positive Corbyn stuff in unrelated threads for no reason, they get deleted too. But thats pretty rare as oddly enough, on here (not IRL) his supporters do not seem as obsessed with him as those who dislike him.

So TLDR; to be clear, anyone who will consistently take threads offtopic and make one line posts about a singular topic and turn near every thread into the same repetitive stuff, will have their posts deleted and tbh, if it keeps going then bans (from this section only) will start being given out.

So yeah, I hope this all makes sense.

[jaxie]

OK I will try and explain here but I am genuinely half asleep so excuse typos and any nonsense. Not even sure why I am replying now, but I can't sleep and am reading through the deleted stuff all over.

So there have been many many reports and complaints about every thread in this section being turned into a Corbyn one. I think its a valid complaint, I see it everywhere and I do think its ruining the forum. I mean, the Hitler thread a few days back was almost immediately turned into a Corbyn thread. Then all of the Corbyn stuff was deleted and people still kept trying to bring Corbyn into it. Deleted a few times actually and still people tried and tried, it was tedious, as is moderating this section in general ATM. Its just really getting beyond a joke now and yes, we will be deleting random Corbyn crap thats posted in irrelevant areas.

IF there was anywhere near the amount of that for, say May/Mogg/Trump, we would do exactly the same thing. If there was a group of posters constantly turning every thread into a thread about May/Mogg/Trump/whoever then it would be the same.

Its not censoring negative views on Corbyn because 1. This thread is proof that negative stuff is allowed, and there are other threads also. If there was censorship, then these would be gone. 2. If there were any members bringing up positive Corbyn stuff in every thread that would also be deleted. And 3. Its absolute rubbish that we would try to censor one side in the first place. If we silenced all of one opinion, this forum would be dead as there would be nothing to actually debate (read, argue :laugh:) about. What good is an echo chamber. Of course noone wants that, thats ridiculous.

Its just got far too over the top now and does sometimes come across as baiting, but sometimes as a bit of an obsession.

Though I do agree that maybe it was a bit harsh removing mention of Corbyn from the Rees Mogg thread, but again, this has been done in reaction to the ridiculous wave of Corbyn nonsense that is sweeping this section from the same few members. Also the removed posts were not exactly anything to do with the thread topic. There was no mention of the thread topic in the removed posts, it was all very much like a random 'Corbyn Is A Very Bad Man' and while yes, many of the posts on that thread were basically 'Mogg Is a Very Bad Man'..thats actually what the topic was about.

I mean, if Corbyn had to be brought up, even something like 'I acknowledge the video. I do think Corbyn is just as bad though. Neither would be good PMs' or 'I think Mogg is great, that video is propaganda. He would be a much better PM than Corbyn'. But honestly, its at the stage where even that could be problematic as what would happen is the Corbyn bit would be quoted, more Corbyn stuff posted, and then it will just totally be a Corbyn thread between the same couple of members and anyone coming in to actually discuss the thread topic, will see all of the Corbyn stuff and not even bother posting as whats the point? Seriously, this has to end. This section is just a ****ing mess and getting worse by the day. Its not always negative Corbyn posts deleted either, when people do bring up positive Corbyn stuff in unrelated threads for no reason, they get deleted too. But thats pretty rare as oddly enough, on here (not IRL) his supporters do not seem as obsessed with him as those who dislike him.

So TLDR; to be clear, anyone who will consistently take threads offtopic and make one line posts about a singular topic and turn near every thread into the same repetitive stuff, will have their posts deleted and tbh, if it keeps going then bans (from this section only) will start being given out.

So yeah, I hope this all makes sense.

First of all, thank you Vicky for posting an explanation.

The problem I have here is that you mention the same few posters bringing up Corbyn all the time. If it's necessary to police Corbyn posts isn't that where it should begin? I know I don't post about him all the time and I can't say I've seen Jet do so which makes it difficult to understand why our posts were targeted. He wasn't being called scum. And I would say it is relevant to point out that the language used towards tory MPs is a lot more inflammatory than the language used about labour from what I see.

I would also argue that the leader of the labour party is always relevant in a political thread.

Can I ask if the Corbyn censorship will also be applied to those having his face as an avatar? Perhaps if we, as a forum, didn't have to look at him so often he wouldn't get brought up so much.

[Vicky.]

First of all, thank you Vicky for posting an explanation.

The problem I have here is that you mention the same few posters bringing up Corbyn all the time. If it's necessary to police Corbyn posts isn't that where it should begin? I know I don't post about him all the time and I can't say I've seen Jet do so which makes it difficult to understand why our posts were targeted. He wasn't being called scum. And I would say it is relevant to point out that the language used towards tory MPs is a lot more inflammatory than the language used about labour from what I see.

I would also argue that the leader of the labour party is always relevant in a political thread.

Can I ask if the Corbyn censorship will also be applied to those having his face as an avatar? Perhaps if we, as a forum, didn't have to look at him so often he wouldn't get brought up so much.

You have got to be joking here :laugh:

And are you seriously comparing someone having a Corbyn avatar to the amount of threads taken offtopic with Corbyn stuff in this section, and seemingly blaming the repetitive Corbyn stuff on the avatar someone has?! Thats bonkers.

Its not necessary to police Corbyn posts as such. Its the constant Corbyn posts in random topics. As I said, there have been many complaints, and from members who are from both left and right about it. There was a stage not long ago where someone was posting a LOT of threads on the same topic, and again, taking a lot of other threads offtopic with the same thing, The solution there ended up being that all posts of that nature were put into a singular discussion thread. Unless there was actual new news. Now that it a few members doing it, its not really feasible. I really dont know what you expect us to do here? Just allow every thread to be turned into a Corbyn one and let this section die...just become a group of maybe 5/6 members going round and round in circles while others all just ignore it totally? Maybe thats the best way tbh, as it seems that we will always be in the wrong and honestly, I am getting so sick of complaints and reports and stuff now, almost always about the same thing. Then complaints when we attempt to sort out the thing thats complained about most.

Also its not the inflammatory language thats the problem, I have no idea why so many people think its horrific that dezzy called an MP scum. I really don't see it. Its the repetiveness in every bloody thread thats the problem. I guess a comparison would be if there were a group of members like thetruth...going from thread to thread basically pretty much copy/pasting woman hating stuff. Turning a thread about zebras into a thread about evil women. Bringing up evil women in a thread about a new swiming pool being built, then being congratulated by a couple of other members for bringing up evil women. Then making a thread about how evil women are. Followed by going into thread about trump and saying that evil women deserved to be grabbed by the pussy as they are evil. And so on.

And I am not comparing misogyny to disliking Corbyn btw. Just..that member was fairly obsessive and may be known by you where others might not and I need a comparison to try and show you how it comes across to most.

Maybe we should just create a subsection where politicians are not allowed to be mentioned at all. Which is a serious suggestion brought up by a member which I and another mod agree with and we are just wating on amdin saying something. That may be the only way to actually keep a serious debates section serious debates, instead of sniping and such.

Sorry if this seems I am ranting at you. I really am not and I know this is a huge wall of text but I am just trying to explain the position we are in at the moment and the problem.

Will see if I can get admin to comment on this. As its just realistically going to go round in circles yet again, with me saying the same thing and you saying its censorship then me saying its not then someone else chipping in so yeah. Admins probably best.

Until admin do comment though, this is the rule I am sticking to. I know you find it unfair. But given the sheer amount of complaints this matter has had, and how I (and other mods) see it...it seems the only solution for now. Sorry.

[jaxie]

You have got to be joking here :laugh:

And are you seriously comparing someone having a Corbyn avatar to the amount of threads taken offtopic with Corbyn stuff in this section, and seemingly blaming the repetitive Corbyn stuff on the avatar someone has?! Thats bonkers.

Its not necessary to police Corbyn posts as such. Its the constant Corbyn posts in random topics. As I said, there have been many complaints, and from members who are from both left and right about it. There was a stage not long ago where someone was posting a LOT of threads on the same topic, and again, taking a lot of other threads offtopic with the same thing, The solution there ended up being that all posts of that nature were put into a singular discussion thread. Unless there was actual new news. Now that it a few members doing it, its not really feasible. I really dont know what you expect us to do here? Just allow every thread to be turned into a Corbyn one and let this section die...just become a group of maybe 5/6 members going round and round in circles while others all just ignore it totally? Maybe thats the best way tbh, as it seems that we will always be in the wrong and honestly, I am getting so sick of complaints and reports and stuff now, almost always about the same thing. Then complaints when we attempt to sort out the thing thats complained about most.

Also its not the inflammatory language thats the problem, I have no idea why so many people think its horrific that dezzy called an MP scum. I really don't see it. Its the repetiveness in every bloody thread thats the problem. I guess a comparison would be if there were a group of members like thetruth...going from thread to thread basically pretty much copy/pasting woman hating stuff. Turning a thread about zebras into a thread about evil women. Bringing up evil women in a thread about a new swiming pool being built, then being congratulated by a couple of other members for bringing up evil women. Then making a thread about how evil women are. Followed by going into thread about trump and saying that evil women deserved to be grabbed by the pussy as they are evil. And so on.

And I am not comparing misogyny to disliking Corbyn btw. Just..that member was fairly obsessive and may be known by you where others might not and I need a comparison to try and show you how it comes across to most.

Maybe we should just create a subsection where politicians are not allowed to be mentioned at all. Which is a serious suggestion brought up by a member which I and another mod agree with and we are just wating on amdin saying something. That may be the only way to actually keep a serious debates section serious debates, instead of sniping and such.

Sorry if this seems I am ranting at you. I really am not and I know this is a huge wall of text but I am just trying to explain the position we are in at the moment and the problem.

Will see if I can get admin to comment on this. As its just realistically going to go round in circles yet again, with me saying the same thing and you saying its censorship then me saying its not then someone else chipping in so yeah. Admins probably best.

Until admin do comment though, this is the rule I am sticking to. I know you find it unfair. But given the sheer amount of complaints this matter has had, and how I (and other mods) see it...it seems the only solution for now. Sorry.

You didn't come over as ranting and I'm pleased you responded as it explains where the surprising censorship came from. It's good to have some rationale, whether I agree or not.

What do I want? Just to understand why what I didn't view as inflammatory posts were suddenly removed almost immediately they were posted. Calling someone scum isn't horrific but it's more inflammatory in my view than what I said in regard Corbyn. So for the sake of comparison I didn't understand why that is ok and what I said wasn't. I am clearer on how it happened now. Though I still disagree that there was a problem with much or what was removed from that particular thread.

With regard the avatars a visual does bring someone to mind. It does for me anyway. Seeing them a lot makes you think of them in relation to the thread. :shrug:

I hope I've explained as reasonably as you did and you don't feel that I'm getting at you.

Definitely here for more zebra threads.

[Vicky.]

I have asked admin to comment anyway as I am sure there will be more replies to my post soon once its not so ridiculously early in the morning :laugh: And I don't see the point in going round and round with people. Just thought I would try to explain a bit more of whats going on. And basically just put my take on it.

If the posts were deleted as soon as they were posted, then its probably as a mod was actually looking at that thread whilst they were posted, or went onto it as soon as you posted. One of the two.

But yeah, been nice to disagree, but civilly :p And definitely could do with some zebras

[Brillopad]

OK I will try and explain here but I am genuinely half asleep so excuse typos and any nonsense. Not even sure why I am replying now, but I can't sleep and am reading through the deleted stuff all over.

So there have been many many reports and complaints about every thread in this section being turned into a Corbyn one. I think its a valid complaint, I see it everywhere and I do think its ruining the forum. I mean, the Hitler thread a few days back was almost immediately turned into a Corbyn thread. Then all of the Corbyn stuff was deleted and people still kept trying to bring Corbyn into it. Deleted a few times actually and still people tried and tried, it was tedious, as is moderating this section in general ATM. Its just really getting beyond a joke now and yes, we will be deleting random Corbyn crap thats posted in irrelevant areas.

IF there was anywhere near the amount of that for, say May/Mogg/Trump, we would do exactly the same thing. If there was a group of posters constantly turning every thread into a thread about May/Mogg/Trump/whoever then it would be the same.

Its not censoring negative views on Corbyn because 1. This thread is proof that negative stuff is allowed, and there are other threads also. If there was censorship, then these would be gone. 2. If there were any members bringing up positive Corbyn stuff in every thread that would also be deleted. And 3. Its absolute rubbish that we would try to censor one side in the first place. If we silenced all of one opinion, this forum would be dead as there would be nothing to actually debate (read, argue :laugh:) about. What good is an echo chamber. Of course noone wants that, thats ridiculous.

Its just got far too over the top now and does sometimes come across as baiting, but sometimes as a bit of an obsession.

Though I do agree that maybe it was a bit harsh removing mention of Corbyn from the Rees Mogg thread, but again, this has been done in reaction to the ridiculous wave of Corbyn nonsense that is sweeping this section from the same few members. Also the removed posts were not exactly anything to do with the thread topic. There was no mention of the thread topic in the removed posts, it was all very much like a random 'Corbyn Is A Very Bad Man' and while yes, many of the posts on that thread were basically 'Mogg Is a Very Bad Man'..thats actually what the topic was about.

I mean, if Corbyn had to be brought up, even something like 'I acknowledge the video. I do think Corbyn is just as bad though. Neither would be good PMs' or 'I think Mogg is great, that video is propaganda. He would be a much better PM than Corbyn'. But honestly, its at the stage where even that could be problematic as what would happen is the Corbyn bit would be quoted, more Corbyn stuff posted, and then it will just totally be a Corbyn thread between the same couple of members and anyone coming in to actually discuss the thread topic, will see all of the Corbyn stuff and not even bother posting as whats the point? Seriously, this has to end. This section is just a ****ing mess and getting worse by the day. Its not always negative Corbyn posts deleted either, when people do bring up positive Corbyn stuff in unrelated threads for no reason, they get deleted too. But thats pretty rare as oddly enough, on here (not IRL) his supporters do not seem as obsessed with him as those who dislike him.

So TLDR; to be clear, anyone who will consistently take threads offtopic and make one line posts about a singular topic and turn near every thread into the same repetitive stuff, will have their posts deleted and tbh, if it keeps going then bans (from this section only) will start being given out.

So yeah, I hope this all makes sense.

Tbh honest Vicky I fail to see how the mention of Corbyn in that thread can be described as derailing the thread as it was pretty obvious it was Corbyn supporters who attacked Mogg - so it seems very relevant to me.

It also seems obvious to me that some mods are more able than others to stop their personal opinions from affecting how they react to certain topics. The accusations of derailing the thread are increasing ten-fold and also appear to be a convenient shut-down tactic to me.

[Cherie]

You have explained it well Vicky that said if a mod is actively contributing to a thread and using inflammatory language they really shouldn't be deleting other members posts, I believe there was some rule about mods not actively modding in a thread they are participating in and in view of this change in rules in S&D then this rule needs to be enforced more rigorously.

[Vicky.]

You have explained it well Vicky that said if a mod is actively contributing to a thread and using inflammatory language they really shouldn't be deleting other members posts, I believe there was some rule about mods not actively modding in a thread they are participating in and in view of this change in rules in S&D then this rule needs to be enforced more rigorously.

Its not really a rule its just somthing we tend to do as obviously, conflict of interest at times. If I am participating in a heated thread I tend to not mod it and will instead report. BUT if no other staff are online you kind of have to mod discussions that you are in sometimes

[Vicky.]

Tbh honest Vicky I fail to see how the mention of Corbyn in that thread can be described as derailing the thread as it was pretty obvious it was Corbyn supporters who attacked Mogg - so it seems very relevant to me.

It also seems obvious to me that some mods are more able than others to stop their personal opinions from affecting how they react to certain topics. The accusations of derailing the thread are increasing ten-fold and also appear to be a convenient shut-down tactic to me.

I did say in one of my posts (edit. the one you quoted actually) that it may have been a bit heavy handed in that single thread. But generally, this Corbyn thing is getting way out of hand. Seemingly most threads get turned into Corbyn sniping, and yes, sometimes his supporters start it, I am not denying that but its just way beyond a joke now and a lot of members have picked up on it.

[Cherie]

Its not really a rule its just somthing we tend to do as obviously, conflict of interest at times. If I am participating in a heated thread I tend to not mod it and will instead report. BUT if no other staff are online you kind of have to mod discussions that you are in sometimes

Pretty sure Dezzy has said he adheres to this “rule” as well, I haven’t seen the deleted posts but if they were posts from Jet I doubt very much there was anything that couldnt wait until another mod came online so appropriate deletions could be made then with a general note made in the thread as to why they were deleted. This new rule has not been relayed to members it seems?

[Vicky.]

Pretty sure Dezzy has said he adheres to this “rule” as well, I haven’t seen the deleted posts but if they were posts from Jet I doubt very much there was anything that couldnt wait until another mod came online so appropriate deletions could be made then with a general note made in the thread as to why they were deleted. This new rule has not been relayed to members it seems?

Again its not a new rule as such. Its always been a rule that threads should stay on topic. Natural discourse is fine, like if the thread ends up going in another direction. The puposeful turning round of every thread onto one subject is not. And that really is how it appears to me, and a lot of members too.

Again though I should say, personally I think it might have been a bit heavy handed in the Mogg thread. But I CAN see why they were deleted as they were basically just 'well you like Corbyn so ner ner ner ner ner' type posts from what I saw. I do think in threads about current politics, obviously Corbyn can be relevant. But it really adds nothing to the discussion at all to be just answering a thread about someones voting record with 'Corbyn is bad' or whatever

I am not going to comment publically on what dezzy does or does not do. Thats totally up to him to explain.

[jaxie]

Again its not a new rule as such. Its always been a rule that threads should stay on topic. Natural discourse is fine, like if the thread ends up going in another direction. The puposeful turning round of every thread onto one subject is not. And that really is how it appears to me, and a lot of members too.

Again though I should say, personally I think it might have been a bit heavy handed in the Mogg thread. But I CAN see why they were deleted as they were basically just 'well you like Corbyn so ner ner ner ner ner' type posts from what I saw. I do think in threads about current politics, obviously Corbyn can be relevant. But it really adds nothing to the discussion at all to be just answering a thread about someones voting record with 'Corbyn is bad' or whatever

I am not going to comment publically on what dezzy does or does not do. Thats totally up to him to explain.

I can't remember word for word as it's been removed. I think it began when I pointed out that if the thread had been about Corbyn and the same words thrown about there would have been a riot. I thought it was a relevant point since there a lot of posts calling Reese Mogg names like scum and rancid. I'm still unsure how that is ner ner ner. It's a fair point on the use of language and personally I don't think it's necessary to call anyone scum etc. I mean I don't like Diane Abbott and I've called her a hypocrite because she sends her son to private school while promoting state schools for everyone else. But I don't think that is the same as calling her scum etc.

I am not a Tory supporter but I often find myself defending the right due to the sheer level of nastiness aimed that way here. It would be different if it was a relevant point but it's just name calling usually.

[bots]

let's call a spade a spade. Throwing around ill considered terms like scum at a person that is democratically elected to parliament and has not done anything close to illegal is purely inflammatory. This is serious debates, and if someone wants to criticize on a topic, it should be thoughtful and accurate. If everyone stuck to that, it would be a lot fairer, and a lot less controversial.

[Cherie]

Again its not a new rule as such. Its always been a rule that threads should stay on topic. Natural discourse is fine, like if the thread ends up going in another direction. The puposeful turning round of every thread onto one subject is not. And that really is how it appears to me, and a lot of members too.

Again though I should say, personally I think it might have been a bit heavy handed in the Mogg thread. But I CAN see why they were deleted as they were basically just 'well you like Corbyn so ner ner ner ner ner' type posts from what I saw. I do think in threads about current politics, obviously Corbyn can be relevant. But it really adds nothing to the discussion at all to be just answering a thread about someones voting record with 'Corbyn is bad' or whatever

I am not going to comment publically on what dezzy does or does not do. Thats totally up to him to explain.

No I don’t expect you to, but if these deletions are a new rule of SD it would be good to make it clear before members have posts deleted, otherwise the thread ends up like this :laugh:

[Vicky.]

I can't remember word for word as it's been removed. I think it began when I pointed out that if the thread had been about Corbyn and the same words thrown about there would have been a riot. I thought it was a relevant point since there a lot of posts calling Reese Mogg names like scum and rancid. I'm still unsure how that is ner ner ner.
I was paraphrasing, and there were a lot of posts removed from there. You seem to think this is all about your post? Its really really not.

let's call a spade a spade. Throwing around ill considered terms like scum at a person that is democratically elected to parliament and has not done anything close to illegal is purely inflammatory. This is serious debates, and if someone wants to criticize on a topic, it should be thoughtful and accurate. If everyone stuck to that, it would be a lot fairer, and a lot less controversial.

It's a fair point on the use of language and personally I don't think it's necessary to call anyone scum etc. I mean I don't like Diane Abbott and I've called her a hypocrite because she sends her son to private school while promoting state schools for everyone else. But I don't think that is the same as calling her scum etc.

I genuinely did not know people found the word scum so offensive. This is the first I have heard of it and have seen the word used a lot of times. Both in this section and the BB sections.

[Vicky.]

No I don’t expect you to, but if these deletions are a new rule of SD it would be good to make it clear before members have posts deleted, otherwise the thread ends up like this :laugh:

This is why I have asked admin to comment.

And as I said, its not a new rule. Its something thats been in place for a long time. Just its been abused like hell recently.

[jaxie]

I was paraphrasing, and there were a lot of posts removed from there. You seem to think this is all about your post? Its really really not.





I genuinely did not know people found the word scum so offensive. This is the first I have heard of it and have seen the word used a lot of times. Both in this section and the BB sections.

It seems an extreme use of language for just being in politics and inflammatory and aimed to provoke in that context. It wasn't the only word negatively used. For instance if I was going to call someone scum it would be a child murderer. It just seemed odd in context that scum was ok but some of the other things said weren't ok and vanished.

Well it's all about me! But seriously I felt it was me who brought Corbyn up and my posts were removed.

I didn't like to hear people call Ann scum either. It seemed extreme.

[Vicky.]

It seems an extreme use of language for just being in politics and inflammatory and aimed to provoke in that context. It wasn't the only word negatively used. For instance if I was going to call someone scum it would be a child murderer. It just seemed odd in context that scum was ok but some of the other things said weren't ok and vanished.

Well it's all about me! But seriously I felt it was me who brought Corbyn up and my posts were removed.

I didn't like to hear people call Ann scum either. It seemed extreme.

3 seperate people brought Corbyn up before you did, those posts were quoted numerous times. Then you posted

It's funny, if this was a Jeremy Corbyn thread people would be up in arms and butthurt.

But the other comments may have been removed before you did post...so you may not have seen them.

Took me ages to load those deleted posts for some reason.

[jaxie]

3 seperate people brought Corbyn up before you did, those posts were quoted numerous times. Then you posted



But the other comments may have been removed before you did post...so you may not have seen them.

Took me ages to load those deleted posts for some reason.

I don't remember seeing anything about him before I posted. So maybe they were deleted first then. The posts were leaving that thread really fast.

[Vicky.]

Yes. The first attempt to turn it into another Corbyn thread was just 4 posts into the thread. Yours was waaaay down the thread :p

[Josy]

That is nothing to do with what is being asked. I just want an answer to this question as do others:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.You have explained nothing - just attempted to justify your biased modding. It as controlling as any politician I have seen on either side. Those in glass houses and all that.Tbh honest Vicky I fail to see how the mention of Corbyn in that thread can be described as derailing the thread as it was pretty obvious it was Corbyn supporters who attacked Mogg - so it seems very relevant to me.

It also seems obvious to me that some mods are more able than others to stop their personal opinions from affecting how they react to certain topics. The accusations of derailing the thread are increasing ten-fold and also appear to be a convenient shut-down tactic to me.So im a bit late commenting on this but completely agree with both Dezzy and Vickys opinion on the derailment of threads with all the Corbyn stuff and its seemingly the same posters that are guilty of this, it needs to stop and these sort of comments that are designed to derail threads will be removed and the posters will be infracted if they continue to do it, no its not censorship its us trying our best to stop threads constantly going off topic and descending into the same old arguments.

[Livia]

I'm only coming in at the end of this for a bit of a comment. I think one of my own posts may have been removed, not sure... but it's a regular thing. So when exactly can we mention the name, Corbyn if not in a thread about politics? And which other politicians cannot be mentioned if the thread isn't purely about them? People have to get away from the idea that his name is mentioned purely to upset other posters. It is not. It is mentioned because he is the leader of one of the two biggest parties in the country. And when you look at some of the things that have been said about the Tories in Corbyn support threads, some of the pictures and jokes that have been posted, it looks to me like censorship. And now we're going to be banned and infracted. This is TiBB, not Momentum. At the moment Mods are claiming to know the workings of people's minds by telling them that they only came in to bait. And that's not true for me. Everyone who doesn't support Corbyn is treated the same, they're all baiting. And I can't see that as true.

I'll make sure to report every mention of every Tory in every Corbyn thread if that's the direction we're now taking.

[Cherie]

I'm only coming in at the end of this for a bit of a comment. I think one of my own posts may have been removed, not sure... but it's a regular thing. So when exactly can we mention the name, Corbyn if not in a thread about politics? And which other politicians cannot be mentioned if the thread isn't purely about them? People have to get away from the idea that his name is mentioned purely to upset other posters. It is not. It is mentioned because he is the leader of one of the two biggest parties in the country. And when you look at some of the things that have been said about the Tories in Corbyn support threads, some of the pictures and jokes that have been posted, it looks to me like censorship. And now we're going to be banned and infracted. This is TiBB, not Momentum. At the moment Mods are claiming to know the workings of people's minds by telling them that they only came in to bait. And that's not true for me. Everyone who doesn't support Corbyn is treated the same, they're all baiting. And I can't see that as true.

I'll make sure to report every mention of every Tory in every Corbyn thread if that's the direction we're now taking.


This needs clarification, taking this thread as an example there are plenty posts about the Tory's but not so many mentions of Teresa May per se, is that how to get around this new rule, talk about the party rather than the leader?

[jaxie]

So im a bit late commenting on this but completely agree with both Dezzy and Vickys opinion on the derailment of threads with all the Corbyn stuff and its seemingly the same posters that are guilty of this, it needs to stop and these sort of comments that are designed to derail threads will be removed and the posters will be infracted if they continue to do it, no its not censorship its us trying our best to stop threads constantly going off topic and descending into the same old arguments.

Hi Josy! :wavey: Ok so you agree with both Dezzy and Vicky and yet they disagree because Vicky thought it was a bit heavy handed to remove all those posts on that particular thread. So can you clarify a bit more who you do agree with?

Can you tell me how my post derailed the thread and point me at how I am doing this often please? My post was removed and if you say it is the same people then you are lumping me in that.

As Livia said should we now be reporting every post about every politician who isn't in the thread OP when it's a political thread now?

Can we talk about Teresa May or is it just Jeremy Corbyn who is off topic?

[Jack_]

Can I ask if the Corbyn censorship will also be applied to those having his face as an avatar? Perhaps if we, as a forum, didn't have to look at him so often he wouldn't get brought up so much.

Are you for real? I didn't even comment on the JRM thread, and often avoid many ones in this section these days because they descend into the same tiresome, repetitive Corbyn mudslinging - so the idea that it's my avatar that's leading you to bring him up is complete nonsense. I'm flattered that you're trying to imply I have that much of an impact on you but seriously, take some ownership for your own actions.

My avatar was and is a JOKE that was combined with my Christmas name change and signature, the only reason it hasn't changed yet is I haven't had the time/couldn't be bothered to find one to replace it. He's wearing a Santa hat for Christ sake :unsure:

[Vicky.]

Its not discussing seperate politicians. Its the constant turning threads into a singular topic. Like..lets say a member started bring every single politics thread (and some threads that arent to do with politics) round to Rees Mogg. This would be an issue. Where, mentioning Rees Mogg in a thread would not. It would become an even bigger issue if suddenly a couple+ of posters started doing this, and quoting all of each others posts in the derailed threads to keep the derailment going each time. Which would often end up in an argument that is offtopic, samey, and could have been stopped before it even started.

The huge problem we have to sort out now is, that there are now so many members who are bringing all threads round to Corbyn...that any mention of Corbyn turns entire threads into bickering about Corbyn. I ****ing hate the word Corbyn recently, not just for himself, but because I have typed it, and read it way too many times.

Can any of you think of a solution here, as I actually am struggling, a lot...to think of solutions beyond deleting posts when they start taking threads offtopic. Given removing the regular offtopic posts (that usually are just sniping...and turn into full blown arguments half the time) is apparently the wrong thing to do :shrug: I do welcome all suggestions here. Feels a bit..rock and a hard place.

[Josy]

Hi Josy! :wavey: Ok so you agree with both Dezzy and Vicky and yet they disagree because Vicky thought it was a bit heavy handed to remove all those posts on that particular thread. So can you clarify a bit more who you do agree with?

Can you tell me how my post derailed the thread and point me at how I am doing this often please? My post was removed and if you say it is the same people then you are lumping me in that.

As Livia said should we now be reporting every post about every politician who isn't in the thread OP when it's a political thread now?

I agree with both of them about the thread derailments in general im not referring specifically to this thread.

No theres no need for anyone to be reporting things like that, thats obviously completely over the top and of course it depends on the thread and the context of the replies.

My main point is the offtopic corbyn stuff in most of the serious debates threads.

I havent been around much lately but as far as im aware youre not one of the members thats guilty of doing it.

[jaxie]

Are you for real? I didn't even comment on the JRM thread, and often avoid many ones in this section these days because they descend into the same tiresome, repetitive Corbyn mudslinging - so the idea that it's my avatar that's leading you to bring him up is complete nonsense. I'm flattered that you're trying to imply I have that much of an impact on you but seriously, take some ownership for your own actions.

My avatar was and is a JOKE that was combined with my Christmas name change and signature, the only reason it hasn't changed yet is I haven't had the time/couldn't be bothered to find one to replace it. He's wearing a Santa hat for Christ sake :unsure:

You aren't the only person who has a Corbyn avatar and it's a fair question. If someones face is there it makes you think of them. If we aren't supposed to mention him then it's going to be harder if, as well as being the leader of the opposition, we have to keep seeing his face. I can't speak for others but I am personally influenced by visuals.

Interestingly talking of mudslinging, I don't think I've seen Corbyn called scum on a thread in recent history.

[Livia]

Its not discussing seperate politicians. Its the constant turning threads into a singular topic. Like..lets say a group of members started bring every single politics thread (and some threads that arent to do with politics) round to Rees Mogg. This would be an issue. Where, mentioning Rees Mogg in a thread would not. It would become an even bigger issue if suddenly a couple+ of posters started doing this, and quoting all of each others posts in the derailed threads to keep the derailment going each time.

The huge problem we have to sort out now is, that there are now so many members who are bringing all threads round to Corbyn...that any mention of Corbyn turns entire threads into bickering about Corbyn. I ****ing hate the word Corbyn recently, not just for himself, but because I have typed it, and read it way too many times.

Vicky, with great respect... You must have seem some of the stuff posted about the Tories. Not just May, but any Tory who's in the news that day. Have you had a lot of complaints about that? Because it's looking pretty one-sided at the moment. Like I said, Corbyn is the leader of one of the main parties in the UK. And he is a controversial figure. Discussions about politics always get heated... but it looks like Corbyn is being singled out for special attention? I've seen some pretty crappy stuff posted about the Tories... but you know, that's politics. And if we, as adults, are going to discuss politics, some feelings are going to get hurt. It's the way it is. I don't support Corbyn, but I don't support May either. And I feel like as a 37 year old professional woman I shouldn't be told that" you were only making that comment to upset [insert name of Corbyn supporter] when it is not true. At the moment it looks like Admin is taking sides and not being impartial... otherwise you're going to have to police every mention, of every politician, from every party in case someone feels like their being baited.

[Jack_]

Its not discussing seperate politicians. Its the constant turning threads into a singular topic. Like..lets say a member started bring every single politics thread (and some threads that arent to do with politics) round to Rees Mogg. This would be an issue. Where, mentioning Rees Mogg in a thread would not. It would become an even bigger issue if suddenly a couple+ of posters started doing this, and quoting all of each others posts in the derailed threads to keep the derailment going each time. Which would often end up in an argument that is offtopic, samey, and could have been stopped before it even started.

The huge problem we have to sort out now is, that there are now so many members who are bringing all threads round to Corbyn...that any mention of Corbyn turns entire threads into bickering about Corbyn. I ****ing hate the word Corbyn recently, not just for himself, but because I have typed it, and read it way too many times.

Can any of you think of a solution here, as I actually am struggling, a lot...to think of solutions beyond deleting posts when they start taking threads offtopic. Given removing the regular offtopic posts (that usually are just sniping...and turn into full blown arguments half the time) is apparently the wrong thing to do :shrug: I do welcome all suggestions here. Feels a bit..rock and a hard place.

What about moving all off-topic discussions of Corbyn (or other issues that derail threads) into specific big threads that have already been created for that purpose? A bit like that thread TS was posting in the other week that he suggested was recreated, if a discussion about x turns into a discussion like 'yeah x is x but CORBYN IS Y', then rather than the posts being removed which seems to be frustrating people, they're moved to a Jeremy Corbyn thread (I think one was created recently, and certainly arista had the original when he first became leader and updated it for about 18 months), where the members involved can then discuss his relation to the original topic to their hearts content, while everyone else continues the original discussion back in the main thread.

[Josy]

Vicky, with great respect... You must have seem some of the stuff posted about the Tories. Not just May, but any Tory who's in the news that day. Have you had a lot of complaints about that? Because it's looking pretty one-sided at the moment. Like I said, Corbyn is the leader of one of the main parties in the UK. And he is a controversial figure. Discussions about politics always get heated... but it looks like Corbyn is being singled out for special attention? I've seen some pretty crappy stuff posted about the Tories... but you know, that's politics. And if we, as adults, are going to discuss politics, some feelings are going to get hurt. It's the way it is. I don't support Corbyn, but I don't support May either. And I feel like as a 37 year old professional woman I shouldn't be told that" you were only making that comment to upset [insert name of Corbyn supporter] when it is not true. At the moment it looks like Admin is taking sides and not being impartial... otherwise you're going to have to police every mention, of every politician, from every party in case someone feels like their being baited.

No admin arent taking sides livia we are trying to stop derailments of threads in this section with the same old stuff being posted constantly to bait other members and take threads off topic.

[Livia]

I agree with both of them about the thread derailments in general im not referring specifically to this thread.

No theres no need for anyone to be reporting things like that, thats obviously completely over the top and of course it depends on the thread and the context of the replies.

My main point is the offtopic corbyn stuff in most of the serious debates threads.

I havent been around much lately but as far as im aware youre not one of the members thats guilty of doing it.

By "guilty", you mean that a mod had decided that it's off topic and baiting. Because all mods are always impartial. But still no clear rule about other politicians being mentioned. Only Corbyn.

[Josy]

By "guilty", you mean that a mod had decided that it's off topic and baiting. Because all mods are always impartial. But still no clear rule about other politicians being mentioned. Only Corbyn.

Theres wont be a clear rule about politicians being mentioned because like I previously posted it of course depends on the thread context and replies that follow.

[Livia]

No admin arent taking sides livia we are trying to stop derailments of threads in this section with the same old stuff being posted constantly to bait other members and take threads off topic.

Josy, I don't mean to be argumentative, but some mods are definitely taking sides. I've been pulled up in a thread twice, by the same mod, for baiting a Corbyn supporter. I was told that I'd only gone into the thread because that person was posting. In actual fact, the person in question hadn't been on the thread for hours, and when I signed in, I'd looked at who's online and that person wasn't even on the forum. We are not children.

[Crimson Dynamo]

if anyone is suggesting that the left leaning majority of this forum dont do exactly what is being suggested for Corbyn with May or Trump

that is laughable

[Livia]

if anyone is suggesting that the left leaning majority of this forum dont do exactly what is being suggested for Corbyn with May or Trump

that is laughable

That, to my understanding, is what's being suggested.