....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.

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 :/

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

:joker:

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.