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.

What serious accusations have I made that are untrue?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

..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.

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/a...tain-rp79dvvmk

https://www.irishnews.com/news/polit...hies--1032915/

http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-...le-ira-history

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...t-for-the-ira/

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

There is obviously some sort of connection between Adams and Corbyn. https://news.sky.com/story/sinn-fein...ister-11236645
It's quite a historic image that sky are posting here.

Absolutely.

Re the article you have linked:

Adams says:

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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


Come on Dezzy answer jet’s question.

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!!!