One thing that's baffling me is Corbyn's decision to keep Charlie frigging Forkbender. This toff reeks appallingly of Blairite past and just looks and acts like an odious sleaze bag. Why not Helena Kennedy? does anyone know if she turned the position down?

labour are living in a time warp bubble, the factory worker, the ship builder, the coal miners, all voted for them, but today they clam that they still get voted by these people, inturn it is pure pigs in the sky talk from them, the truth is that minority groups is where they get a good amount of core base votes from, because under labour they gave special dispensation and favoritism to minority groups, this is something that the new leader will dare not admit to,

I can't believe I got tetter totters and tata tots mixed up. :laugh:

At least I know what both are now.

Oh dear God I'm in a political thread, how did I end up in here? :omgno:

Let's hope you know the national anthem

Thanks for responding. I am 'full on' at work today and would not want to respond to this Jack without carrying out extensive research, so I will reply later.

The graphics are pretty corny and it is overdramatic but it's not that misleading really. The Bin Laden quote is the main one which has been misrepresented. Yes I've heard why he called Hamas and Hezbollah friends but I don't think his explanation is very satisfactory really. He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland or pro-Israeli campaigners and politicians? He doesn't, yet time and time again he has broken bread with extreme Islamists, anti-semites and hardline republicans. In fact he has called for Israel's leader, Netanyahu, to be tried for war crimes and he has opposed the Israeli football team playing a match in Cardiff. Hamas and Hezbollah are worthy of associating with and calling 'friends' yet professional sportsmen shouldn't even be allowed to partake in a non-political event? The army abolition comments is not that far wide of the mark either seeing as he has heralded the example of Costa Rica who gave up their army and considers it something to emulate.

Ultimately people can rage about the Conservatives and the media's smearing all their like but if you're in the position that Corbyn now is then you can't give them the ammo. He will never have been subject to this much scrutiny before and he seems completely unprepared for it. He needs to get himself a spin doctor, and a good one.

“Jeremy Corbyn’s tradition of the far left has tended to be anti-Israel and supportive of boycotts and delegitimisation. The language is often inflammatory. If that radical anti-Israel, anti-Zionist tendency becomes more mainstream, what is the impact on policies such as faith schools and antisemitism?”

What's next, Jeremy Corbyn ate my hamster? :laugh:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...orbyn-policies

Another fake argument T.S?

Livia stated:

Originally Posted by Livia View Post
"The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale."

To which I pointed out:

"There IS one fundamental but collossal difference Liv - Farage is a patriot."

As Corbyn and Farage ARE at "opposite ends of the same scale", what else is there for me to disagree with other than the point I made?

I see nothing to mock in this excellent article.

Based on Corbyn's undeniable past anti-semitic views and actions, and his highly questionable support and 'friendships' with anti-Jewish terrorist groups, I believe that Jonathan Arkush and other British Jewish leaders have every right to have some concerns now that Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party and a potential future Prime Minister (no matter how remote that possibility is to some of us).

What is more, I applaud the fact that Arkush is being very fair to Corbyn:

“It’s unfair to pre-judge before we have spoken. [Corbyn] may be considering afresh some of his views now he’s in such a senior and responsible position. He no longer has the luxury of being a lone dissenting backbencher. But that doesn’t mean I’m naive or prepared to be soft on concerns and issues raised by the Jewish community.”


Given the unfathomable and disturbing wave of Anti-Semitism which has been increasingly sweeping through Europe - and the UK - over the past few years, these concerns are understandable.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Ahh fair enough, I didn't actually see that you had replied to that.

Much more politely than when I dare compare the two, to be fair. Sexist.

No prob T.S - I'm shet scared of Livia too. :laugh:

Livia is a kitten!

:unsure:

I think its right that his views are questioned. This man could do all sorts, if by some complete fluke he does get in to power. Thing is, its only just started, so Corbyn will need to get used to it pretty quickly. Michael Foot and to a lesser extent, William Hague, were subjected to media scrutiny for years, not days.

Underneath that gold exterior beats a heart of cold.

... That's how the phrase goes, right?

Is that how you measure patriotism the willingness to pay lip service to an out dated out moded dirge?....

Sorry I heavily edited your post but this is the relevant bit I wanted to try and answer.

The Tory party were the ones who started the peace talks with NI. When Labour got elected in 1997 Corbyn was asked (on behalf of the government) to act as 'go between'. The big sticking point was the release of political prisoners because without that, there would be no peace talks. Corbyn and his staff, under direct government instruction, spent months talking to both prisoners and their reps regarding the proposed 'prisoner release scheme'

This was his key role in getting the Good Friday agreement. Without talking to the Sinn Fein the IRA could not of agreed to any peace agreement.

Corbyn is being used as the strawman here. Corbyn was just one of many who played a crucial part under the instruction of the British elected government at the time, to bring about peace in Northern Ireland.

I'm mocking it as it appears to be an article based on what may, might or could possibly happen....
Maybe to go with the hundreds that warn if, when or the consequences of things he hasn't said or done yet :/

But your only reading the right wing side of this story and it simply isn't truth.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/07/r...jeremy-corbyn/

The violent and often racist nature of Hamas and Hezbollah’s role in the region’s conflict apparently make their invitation to parliament unconscionable, whereas representatives of the (just as) violent and often (just as) racist Israeli state can be invited without so much as anyone batting an eyelid.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...-are-dishonest

I do not anticipate that this response will please you, convince you or even make you think a little, but out of courtesy, here it is:

OK, I have spent hours last night into the wee small hours, researching and reading and watching just about all the articles and videos on this subject that I could find - from both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn sources - and I'm afraid, that I can find nothing which changes my opinion of Corbyn or which allays my fears should he ever become Prime Minister.

I was not referring specifically or exclusively to the so-called; 'Tory Tape, when I made my adverse posts about Corbyn, but whilst I agree that it is piss-poor regarding production quality, and whilst I concede that the 'Osama Bin Laden' clip WAS taken out of context - like MTVN - I do not feel that such minor 'cheating' actually alters the truth about Corbyn's highly questionable pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, leanings.

Regardless of the 'Tory Tape' and any reason behind its production, Corbyn HAS said the things he's said and DONE the things he's done, and as I stated in my earlier post, no-one FAKED the newsreel footage and videos of him, so talk of smearing is pure baloney.

"..Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing c**** from Hamas' was he?"

No, he wasn't, but there are better words to use which would not have offended people - especially all the victims of the many Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist atrocities and their families.

He COULD and SHOULD have said 'Representatives', but I believe that he deliberately used the words 'our friends' because THAT is how he GENUINELY regards these terrorist scum and he was deliberately, arrogantly, and contemptuously using that phrase to 'cock-a-snook' at anyone who is offended or who disagrees with him.

Indeed, he uses the word 'FRIENDS' to describe Hamas and Hezbollah THREE times in such a short clip and the relevance of this is highlighted by the fact that he refrains from using such a descriptor when mentioning the Israelis, being content to use just that phrase; "The Israelis"

Further; he actually and skilfully uses the 'cold' term 'The Israelis' in a clever subliminally prejudicial manner by stating that: "..but The ISRAELIS wouldn't allow them to travel" - thereby conjuring up images of the Israelis as repressors stopping 'OUR/HIS FRIENDS' from travelling to such an innocent and worthy function.

Further corroboration of Corbyn's cleverness can be evidenced from his opening lines; "...my PLEASURE and my HONOUR" to host an event in Parliament..."

Now; Did he mean that HOSTING the event was the reason for his PLEASURE and HONOUR? Or because his FRIENDS Hamas and Hezbollah were attending?

I think the last part of the VT will settle any doubts for any impartial, honest, reasonably intelligent viewer, because only an out and out unbalanced terrorist sympathiser would describe these murdering bastards as: "..dedicated to bringing long-term PEACE and SOCIAL justice and POLITICAL justice...." .

Finally; To criticise the British Government fot "labelling" Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organiations" and actually pleading with them to "..think again", shows what the UK is in for if this dangerous idiot ever becomes PM.

God forbid it.

Not so Red. I read as much as I can from all perspectives, but I find nothing which will change my mind - as the Left Wingers on here will never change theirs no matter how persuasive an argument is and no matter how much evidence is presented which justifies such a persuasion.

I guess that's just the way it is, the way it has always been, and the way it will stay, and that we'll just have to agree to differ until time has elapsed and events prove one right and the other wrong.

Here you are again getting all presumptuous, stick to defining your own stance and leave others to establish theirs.

I was exchanging views with Red and being civil about it. Why do YOU ALWAYS have to be so caustic and aggressive. Whoa -- scrub that I don't want another warning or infraction.