[Vicky.]

It is so ****ing patronizing to assume the young only voted for 'free sweeties' and stuff. Incredibly patronizing. Almost as if people believe the young cannot see beyond uni fees and stuff. When infact most won't even benefit from that. Unless you class sorting the NHS out, rehiring police officers and such 'freebies' in which case thats rather strange tbh.

The young cannot win tbh. They don't vote 'they cannot be arsed to get out of bed'. They do vote and its just so they can go to uni free and they have been manipulated...

The level of hatred displayed for young people over this election is shocking tbh. These are the people who will be paying our pensions and stuff before long. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

It is so ****ing patronizing to assume the young only voted for 'free sweeties' and stuff. Incredibly patronizing. Almost as if people believe the young cannot see beyond uni fees and stuff. When infact most won't even benefit from that. Unless you class sorting the NHS out, rehiring police officers and such 'freebies' in which case thats rather strange tbh.

The young cannot win tbh. They don't vote 'they cannot be arsed to get out of bed'. They do vote and its just so they can go to uni free and they have been manipulated...

The level of hatred displayed for young people over this election is shocking tbh. These are the people who will be paying our pensions and stuff before long. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

****ing PREACH.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

****ing PREACH.

Well its true. Its going on everywhere now, this hatred of the young as apparently they stopped May getting her majority and have thus purposely ****ed the country?! After people were taking the piss saying young people wouldn't get off their computers or get out of bed to vote...you know, as they are all so lazy and useless...Its so weird.

Youngsters are getting such a bashing everywhere. Accusations of them being easily manipulated, voting Labour for 'likes' and so on. best reply I have seen yet is this, and its so true.

You know it's rare I think ageism truly exists and then I see threads like this. You said young people were too lazy to get off our arses and vote. Election after election, young people are criticised for the lack of engagement in politics. Then we turn out to vote and suddenly we're too naïve to know what we want. We want freebies. Best of all, we're doing it for the social media likes.

Just how ****ing thick do you think we are? This is mumsnet but I'd be surprised if half of the people spouting this ****e know anyone in the 18-30 age range. Too committed to the image of us lurking around council estates with phones we nicked, getting teenage pregnant and defying our ASBOs no doubt.

Unfortunately what you don't realise is that we came of age during 9/11. My peers have been debating and discussing the war on terror, Israel/Palestine, the Arab spring etc since we were just entering high school. Our universities are political hotbeds and genres like grime are bringing these discussions to previously disenfranchised groups such as young black men (see iconic clip of young guy saying he won't vote for TM because "she's clapped. On top of that, her policies are dead." grin ) if you think young people are interested in nothing but the hashtag, I suggest you go out and meet some ****ing young people (plus what's to stop us just saying #votelabour and not even voting? We showed up.)

For most 18-30s we already have paid our tuition fees. Half of us will be paying £9,000 and were too young to even get a vote on that. In my age range there was a leave/remain mix, and those of us who wanted to remain had the very same arguments as 30+. But voting for Corbyn went beyond that. They gave us policies and a man we could believe in. If you think any other Labour Party could have engaged young people across the board I invite you to name them.

Finally, you do a massive disservice to the many young campaigners who did a fantastic job getting out there, campaigning, hitting doorsteps and so on. There was a massive social media coup, and the campaigners helped translate those likes of funny memes into real time votes.

But it's nice to know the generation that raised us has such a low opinion of us. Wow.

Another point is that many of my age range are young teachers and new NHS workers who are unhappy with the direction those services are taking and have voted in opposition to the tory policies, not on some pie in the sky liberalism leftie-ism. Their views echo my mothers who worked for 20+ years in education, always voted labour despite not being very left (think old school WC) and was dismayed by the what the education system was becoming. 18-30 or even 18-25 encompasses students voting in their first election to those of us who are paying back our student loans (so have no personal benefit in fee abolition) and paying into pensions or even with children and mortgages of our own.

But you know, we're lazy when we don't vote and too thick to know what's good for us when we do vote. What a glowing testimonial of the generation your generation raised.

Same person for both obviously.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

****ing PREACH.

And what were you saying about older voters just recently - something abot them being decrepid.

You have shown a distain for older voters on many occasions. In fact you have shown an unhealthy disdain for the majority of voters calling them stupid and easily led, being the expert on such matters as you seem to think you are.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And what were you saying about older voters just recently - something abot them being decrepid.

You have shown a distain for older voters on many occasions. In fact you have shown an unhealthy disdain for the majority of voters calling them stupid and easily led, being the expert on such matters as you seem to think you are.

I have seen so many of your posts in here saying that too. Only directed at labour voters though naturally No doubt a young person who voted for May would be fine. Its the other lazy useless bastards that are the problem...why on earth did they drag themselves from their pits to cross a box on a piece of paper I mean, its only their lives too that being affected by this. They should leave the important stuff to older people as they clearly know nothing (despite a hell of a lot of 'youngsters' knowing a lot more about politics than your average person)

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And what were you saying about older voters just recently - something abot them being decrepid.

You have shown a distain for older voters on many occasions. In fact you have shown an unhealthy disdain for the majority of voters calling them stupid and easily led, being the expert on such matters as you seem to think you are.

I show disdain for most voters.

I had a valid reason for disliking how the older generations voted since they were swayed by tabloids and a general lack of knowledge outside of what the Tabloids told them to think. I dislike ignorance, the older generations that supported the Tories despite all valid evidence telling them not to are incredibly ignorant.

The Younger generations are more likely to be informed simply because they aren't slaves to the tabloids, the internet is a better source of information and most young voters are likely to use it as opposed to traditional media.

Another attempt to drag me has failed, you should stop trying at this point.

[Jack_]

Yeah don't be silly Vicky, young people should just continue to not vote (and be berated for that) so that we can be pummelled by the Tories, have student fees raised, maintenance grants scrapped, universities given free reign to charge what they like based on whimsical student feedback surveys and a backwards ranking system, schools having to collect money for resources from parents at school gates, being decimated by academisation and on the brink of closure, housing benefit for under 25s cut so we struggle to leave home, struggling to find any kind of secure or full-time work (whilst the government massages employment statistics to make it look like they're solving a crisis!), not being paid enough to cover essentials, having estate agents take the ****ing piss out of students with rip-off admin fees and the like, have an NHS which we will be the main beneficiaries of continue to be dismantled and sold off to the highest bidder, need I go on? How dare we care about any of this! We're just naive ****ing idiots, we must swallow the neoliberal lies about trickle down economics, cause we're all in this together aren't we! The Tories are going to save the country! Brexit is gonna Take Back Control from Those Nasty Immigrants! We must accept what we are told and not question anything - Theresa May is our Dear Leader and she knows best! There is no magic money tree...not even in the Cayman Islands for the Tories and their rich cronies! Rule ****in' Britannia!

[Vicky.]

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I show disdain for most voters.

I had a valid reason for disliking how the older generations voted since they were swayed by tabloids and a general lack of knowledge outside of what the Tabloids told them to think. I dislike ignorance, the older generations that supported the Tories despite all valid evidence telling them not to are incredibly ignorant.

The Younger generations are more likely to be informed simply because they aren't slaves to the tabloids, the internet is a better source of information and most young voters are likely to use it as opposed to traditional media.

Another attempt to drag me has failed, you should stop trying at this point.

The internet is just like any other media outlet with good and bad sources of information so that really makes little sense.

And let's not keep trying to make it personal - it isn't. If I see a post I want to respond to I do, just like you and anyone else.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list

[jet]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I'd like to address a few points you have made here in particular:

Not true. Very many Catholics do not want a United Ireland. We have it too good as members of the UK economically. The Irish Republic couldn't afford us. They have enough economic troubles of their own.

Do you not believe in a democratic process, DR? The citizens of N.Ireland will have a United Ireland when they vote democratically for it, they have always had that choice. To date, the majority of N.Irish citizens do not want a United Ireland and that is why we are still part of the UK.

Corbyn, like the IRA, doesn't believe in democracy and the ballot box for N.Ireland and that is why he was sympathetic to the IRA trying to achieve what the majority didn't want by bombing and killing their way out.
When eventually they realised violence was never going to achieve their goal, they entered into Good Friday Agreement with the Unionists.

.

[/QUOTE]

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list

Love it!!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The internet is just like any other media outlet with good and bad sources of information so that really makes little sense.

And let's not keep trying to make it personal - it isn't. If I see a post I want to respond to I do, just like you and anyone else.

You constantly make personal snipes at anyone who disagrees with you so you can drop that victim act right now because it won't wash with anyone.

The Internet is a more valuable source of information because it supports all views and opinions, you can't get an accurate picture of what's happening just from reading the tabloids because they all have the same agenda and they push it hard with biased reporting.

It's easy enough to type in 'general election 2017' and get a wider range of opinions and news stories that are less likely to be biased, take a few articles from different websites and you're more likely to get the real picture rather than relying on the rampant character assassination that takes place in the tabloids.

Print media is a relic of the older generations, the younger generations aren't uninformed, they just aren't as influenced by trashy tabloids.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list

He's whatever his haters want him to be tbh whether it makes sense or not.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is this the new rhetoric now? That anyone who doesn't vote Tory is greedy and moneygrubbing and just wants more money in their own back pocket? Petty and untrue, is all there really is to say about that. I can't imagine those saying it even believe it, just deliberately trying to be offensive .

I never go out of my way to be offensive TS, life is too short.
I do however believe a lot of people have been taken in by all the freebies on offer.
Young, old, rich and poor.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He's whatever his haters want him to be tbh whether it makes sense or not.

...and whatever his lovers want him to be despite corroborating evidence of his IRA 'love - in' from ample and different sources that not one person has admitted researching, commented on or discussed despite a few of those links provided. It seems like a case of 'if I don't like what I read, it can't be true'.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

...and whatever his lovers want him to be despite corroborating evidence of his IRA 'love - in' from ample and different sources that not one person has admitted researching, commented on or discussed despite a few of those links provided. It seems like a case of 'if I don't like what I read, it can't be true'.

Okay, say what you are saying is correct. Why is he still in power? MPs have been forced to resign for less so why and how has he managed to remain as leader of the labour party if he is a terrorist sympathiser? It makes no sense.

With the amount of enemies he has in the labour party, they'd jump for a chance to remove him using this **** but they haven't. Why?

[James]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I also heard a fantastic term yesterday for the first time and tis stuck in my head

Schrodinger's Corbyn

He is perpetually in a state of being both a limp wristed pacifist who wouldn't 'press the red button' or 'shoot to kill' and a dangerous man who should be on the terrorist watch list

He's a pacifist when it comes to Britain (Edit: and America). Other countries and organisations, not so much.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Okay, say what you are saying is correct. Why is he still in power? MPs have been forced to resign for less so why and how has he managed to remain as leader of the labour party if he is a terrorist sympathiser? It makes no sense.

With the amount of enemies he has in the labour party, they'd jump for a chance to remove him using this **** but they haven't. Why?

The answer to that imo is who really cares if he supported the IRA during their murderous campaign in N.Ireland, because who really cares about what happened in N.Ireland anymore if they ever did? And why should you, I suppose? It's human nature to care more about what actually comes to your own front door and I know the UK mainland got a taste of that too but by God nothing like the carnage we endured and we are left to still visit the graves of those we loved and mourn murdered by the buddies he supported all these years down the line.

The Good Friday Agreement seen the release of terrorists - given a free pardon despite their crimes and Corbyn's part in supporting them has been wiped out along with their life sentences - some of them swapping prison life for careers as Sinn Finn politicians which has been tolerated as acceptable by many, so why not Corbyn, who never actually murdered anyone himself?

The thought of Corbyn becoming PM makes me feel sick to my stomach. I can understand why it isn't the same for the main UK, but at least read up on him and be aware that he has a shady past - and maybe he's changed, in fairness I can't rule that out either. But I'll always detest him for personal reasons as do many here in N. Ireland.

Belfast, N.Ireland hasn't forgotten -

By Ed Curran
June 2 2017

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-35780405.html

The Manchester massacre has evoked embittered memories of the IRA’s bombing campaign on the British mainland. Comparisons are made between last week’s no-warning outrage and the IRA’s destruction of central Manchester in 1996 and the bombings in other English cities, such as Birmingham, Warrington and London between the 1970s and 1990s.



In the midst of the general election campaign, one man in particular, Jeremy Corbyn, remains in the firing line of public opinion and the media over his past allegiances with militant Irish republicanism and unashamed support for a united Ireland.

Never mind his sense of total outrage now about the suicide bombing in Manchester, where did his sympathies and loyalties rest when those earlier IRA attacks took place?

What pain did he experience during more than 70 occasions when he was in the company of Sinn Fein and pro-republican groups during and at the height of the IRA’s violence?

Where was his mind when he stood in protest outside the Old Bailey shortly after the Brighton bombing which targeted Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet?

Was he experiencing the same depth of shock and rejection of terror as he has done now, when he protested at the trial of Patrick Magee, the Brighton bomber, and was placed under arrest?

Did he feel the same as he does now when he outraged British public opinion by inviting two former IRA prisoners as his guests at Westminster in 1984, in the aftermath of the bombing?

He now says: “I condemn all bombing. It is not a good idea and it is terrible what happened.”

Did he tell that to Gerry Adams in the 1980s? Or did he share such thoughts with his close friend, Diane Abbott, who in 1984 was quoted as saying: “Ireland is our struggle and every defeat of the British State a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”

Or what of his attitude towards his choice for Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell, who was forced to apologise abjectly for this statement at a republican event only four years ago: “It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and the sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands which brought Britain to the negotiating table.

“The peace we have now is due to the actions of the IRA. Because of the bravery of IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.”

Time blurs the memory but still cannot erase the pain of the thousands who suffered here and elsewhere at the hands of those whom Mr McDonnell wished to honour.

The weight of evidence about the Corbynite sympathy for Sinn Fein and the IRA, during the latter’s terrorism in Britain, is so extensive and emphatically damning, that it cannot be brushed aside by a short statement of belated regret.

A further indictment is the one-sidedness of the Corbynites — their lack of contact with unionists, with victims of the IRA, their absence of sympathy for the security forces in Northern Ireland and willingness to accept Sinn Fein at face value irrespective of the brutality of its paramilitary wing.

Though it seems unlikely, we cannot rule out the possibility of another upset at the general election next week to add to that of Donald Trump in the United States and Emmanuel Macron in France. In just over a week, Jeremy Corbyn could be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Diane Abbott could be Her Majesty’s Home Secretary, responsible for homeland security, and John McDonnell could be Chancellor in charge of Britain’s — and Northern Ireland’s — future financial fortunes.

It is understandable that many people deserve the clearest possible statement from Mr Corbyn and his political allies about what they said in the past about terror, their views now and future intentions.

These people cannot continue to evoke any doubts as to where they stood before and now on the use of terror to achieve political ends, be it with regard to dissident republicans in Northern Ireland or suicide bombers in British cities.

Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell can see the embarrassment their old allegiances have caused in the light of the Manchester bombing.

However, too many suspicions remain that Jeremy Corbyn and some of the best Labour friends are being economical with the English language when it comes to reflecting on what they said and did in relation to the Troubles. Sadly there is little or no evidence that they gave much thought for others beyond the militant republican movement.

Mr Corbyn says he did what he did for the peace process and supported the Good Friday Agreement.

What solace did he ever offer to the unionist tradition? Does he really accept the central plank of the Belfast Agreement that people here have the right to decide their own destiny inside or outside the UK despite his unequivocal support for a united Ireland?

He has had no alternative but to row back from his past endeavours on behalf of Sinn Fein. A frenzied media in Britain has not let him off the hook, but for the sake of total clarity and to remove lingering suspicions about his attitude to Northern Ireland, he needs to say more and demonstrate that he has learnt that Ireland has more than one side than militant Irish republicanism.

So Mr Corbyn perhaps you would take this opportunity to answer a few pertinent questions, or if not, to set out more clearly your views on issues which continue to disturb people here.

1) Do you accept that there is a difference between meeting or even negotiating with paramilitary groupings and campaigning for their victory?

2) Do you now support the principle of consent in Northern Ireland — that it is for the citizens of the province alone to decide its constitutional future?

3) Do you now regret campaigning against that principle of consent during the Troubles and demanding an end to what you called ‘British occupation’?

4) During your various associations with Sinn Fein, did you call for an end to IRA violence and issue any condemnations of this violence? Can you point to any report or evidence that you did so?

5) Alongside your various associations with Sinn Fein, what meetings and discussions did you have with unionists and loyalists?

6) In November 1987, shortly after the IRA’s Enniskillen bomb, you signed a parliamentary motion saying that violence and bloodshed in Northern Ireland “stems primarily from the long-standing British occupation of that country”. Is that still your view on the causes of the conflict in the province?

7) Do you believe the current campaign of violence by dissident republican groupings also “stems primarily from the long-standing British occupation of that country”?

8) Have you ever met with the victims of IRA violence, such as those injured in bombs or police widows?

I doubt very much if I am alone in seeking answers to these questions. I hope that in the next few days before the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland go to the polls, you may find time to answer them.

Belfast Telegraph

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

The answer to that imo is who really cares if he supported the IRA during their murderous campaign in N.Ireland, because who really cares about what happened in N.Ireland anymore if they ever did? And why should you, I suppose? It's human nature to care more about what actually comes to your own front door and I know the UK mainland got a taste of that too but by God nothing like the carnage we endured and we are left to still visit the graves of those we loved and mourn murdered by the buddies he supported all these years down the line.

The Good Friday Agreement seen the release of terrorists - given a free pardon despite their crimes and Corbyn's part in supporting them has been wiped out along with their life sentences - some of them swapping prison life for careers as Sinn Finn politicians which has been tolerated as acceptable by many, so why not Corbyn, who never actually murdered anyone himself?

...and who is going to to have the balls to go for Corbyn, given the precarious status of the peace process over the last few years? Who wants to be the politician who pokes the hornets nest and adds more fuel to an already volatile situation? Let sleeping dogs lie, because really, who cares about N. Ireland when we have our own worries?

The thought of Corbyn becoming PM makes me feel sick to my stomach. I can understand why it isn't the same for the main UK, but at least read up on him and be aware that he has a shady past - and maybe he's changed, in fairness I can't rule that out either. But I'll always detest him for personal reasons as do many here in N. Ireland.

Belfast, N.Ireland hasn't forgotten:

Well that's hypocritical, if no one really cared then why are people constantly bringing it up? If it's true, how is he still in power?

There must be no real evidence to support these claims otherwise his enemies would have forced him to resign by now.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well that's hypocritical, if no one really cared then why are people constantly bringing it up? If it's true, how is he still in power?

There must be no real evidence to support these claims otherwise his enemies would have forced him to resign by now.

Not sure if you read my edited post with the link? Can you confirm?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Not sure if you read my edited post with the link? Can you confirm?

It doesn't answer my question. If these claims are true then why hasn't it resulted in Jeremy Corbyn being made to resign?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It doesn't answer my question. If these claims are true then why hasn't it resulted in Jeremy Corbyn being made to resign?

I tried to give you reasons I think that may be the case, what more do you want? You tell me!

Have you read the other links I have provided detailing his support of the IRA campaign? What is your response to them?

There are several good books, some written by Nationalist writers detailing the Troubles and the peace process in N. Ireland available on Amazon which I have read. Not one of them mentions Corbyn as having any part in the peace process or the Good Friday Agreement.

But I doubt at this point that you will believe anything that you don't hear personally from Corbyns own mouth directly to your ears. As I said previously, if you don't like what you read, it isn't true, so please don't waste my time asking me questions that you don't even have the grace to consider the answers to.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

I tried to give you reasons I think that may be the case, what more do you want? You tell me!

Have you read the other links I have provided detailing his support of the IRA campaign? What is your response to them?

There are several good books, some written by Nationalist writers detailing the Troubles and the peace process in N. Ireland available on Amazon which I have read. Not one of them mentions Corbyn as having any part in the peace process or the Good Friday Agreement.

But I doubt at this point that you will believe anything that you don't hear personally from Corbyns own mouth directly to your ears. As I said previously, if you don't like what you read, it isn't true, so please don't waste my time asking me questions that you don't even have the grace to consider the answers to.

I asked a simple question, if any of this is true how has he avoided any consequences despite half of his party, the conservatives and basically the entirety of the print media baying for his blood on a daily basis? You can link all the stories you like about Corbyn being an alleged Terrorist Sympathiser but that's not going to change the fact that he hasn't faced any consequences for apparently having these dangerous stances and allies which does more to suggest that the stories are overblown then it does to prove their authenticity.

If all the stories were as they said, Jeremy Corbyn would have been forced out of the party decades ago, nevermind being in contention to run the whole thing.

Until this discrepancy is sorted out then the validity of these stories are in question.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I asked a simple question, if any of this is true how has he avoided any consequences despite half of his party, the conservatives and basically the entirety of the print media baying for his blood on a daily basis? You can link all the stories you like about Corbyn being an alleged Terrorist Sympathiser but that's not going to change the fact that he hasn't faced any consequences for apparently having these dangerous stances and allies which does more to suggest that the stories are overblown then it does to prove their authenticity.

If all the stories were as they said, Jeremy Corbyn would have been forced out of the party decades ago, nevermind being in contention to run the whole thing.

Until this discrepancy is sorted out then the validity of these stories are in question.

Denial, pure and simple.This is the thing in a democracy. We had a previous PM that had an affinity with pigs heads, it didn't stop him being PM.

Democracy is great, but it does throw up the possibility of dubious people getting in to positions of power (I won't mention Mr Trrrr )

Edit: I believe the reason Corbyn is an option now was because Margaret Beckett felt it would do no real harm to have another option in the leadership contest so seconded his nomination while completely disagreeing with him and his principles.