[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

That was a theory banded around by the media that he was a 'joke' candidate. He was in fact just a representative of the left of the party.

[bots]

[QUOTE=Kizzy;9354329]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.[/QUOTE]

That was a theory banded around by the media that he was a 'joke' candidate. He was in fact just a representative of the left of the party.

I heard Margaret Beckett herself say it, so I think she would know.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I heard Margaret Beckett herself say it, so I think she would know.

Maybe your ears were slightly muffled by her thighs, and you misheard?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I heard Margaret Beckett herself say it, so I think she would know.

The opinion was pushed in the media he was the joke candidate, and it backfired. She may not have agreed with him not many did back then if you recall, however he was nominated, supported and elected.

I'm not sure why you would consider him to be 'dubious'?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The opinion was pushed in the media he was the joke candidate, and it backfired. She may not have agreed with him not many did back then if you recall, however he was nominated, supported and elected.

I'm not sure why you would consider him to be 'dubious'?

My point is that he got into the leadership election as a joke candidate to make up the numbers, not because he was considered in any way seriously. However, democracy has a habit of biting back, he was elected leader and the rest is history. That is how dubious people get where they get to, and how dubious history disappears


Ex-Labour Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has described herself as a "moron" for nominating Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership contest.

"At no point did I intend to vote for Jeremy myself - nice as he is - nor advise anyone else to do it," she said.

"We were being urged as MPs to have a field of candidates," she told the BBC.
Ex-adviser to Tony Blair John McTernan had said MPs who "lent" their nominations to Mr Corbyn to "broaden the debate" were "morons".
He made his comment on the BBC's Newsnight on Tuesday.

During an interview with BBC Radio 4's World at One Mrs Beckett was asked if she was, as Mr McTernan put it, a moron for nominating Mr Corbyn. She replied: "I am one of them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33625612

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The opinion was pushed in the media he was the joke candidate, and it backfired. She may not have agreed with him not many did back then if you recall, however he was nominated, supported and elected.

I'm not sure why you would consider him to be 'dubious'?

She agrees with him more now Kizzy, especially after this electoral advance he has made for Labour.
After all pundits and Con supporters laughing at Labour supporters,calling them deluded and that Labour was dead,heading for its lowest number of seats tally since before the war.

Whatever else,they were the deluded ones not Labour supporters.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

Okay that makes no sense.

So many people are in open opposition to him and apparently have a mountain of evidence to back up their claims yet NO ONE has pulled the trigger and ended his career? Why is that? Why would people who stand to gain from his dismissal not opt to put those wheels in motion?

All this stuff about Corbyn's past has been a trial by media but nobody has been able to bring up an actual investigation into him? What does that say? He's certainly not powerful enough to bury such a thing with so much scrutiny on him so that tells me that there is simply no tangible proof otherwise he would have been gone by now.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Okay that makes no sense.

So many people are in open opposition to him and apparently have a mountain of evidence to back up their claims yet NO ONE has pulled the trigger and ended his career? Why is that? Why would people who stand to gain from his dismissal not opt to put those wheels in motion?

All this stuff about Corbyn's past has been a trial by media but nobody has been able to bring up an actual investigation into him? What does that say? He's certainly not powerful enough to bury such a thing with so much scrutiny on him so that tells me that there is simply no tangible proof otherwise he would have been gone by now.

There was an investigation lasting 2 years by the Telegraph into Corbyn and published in 2015. But I’m predicting you won’t believe a word of it because it’s a Tory paper. Numerous other papers have made their own enquiries going way back and came up with the same links to the IRA and more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...IRA-links.html

Yet Corbyn has never sued one paper in all these years for printing such ‘lies’ about him. Why do you think that is?

Some other Labour MP’s haven’t been squeaky clean when it comes to the IRA…..do they really want to open a hornets nest? There have been rumblings very recently on the news and in the press regarding Corbyns past which could very well blow up if he became PM.
His main cover - up is that he was 'working hard to achieve the peace process' which is a blatant lie. Peace was the last thing on his mind in the 70's when he was doing most of his hanging around with his IRA buddies and giving speeches at their rallies and promoting their cause....and he played no part whatsoever in the eventual peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. Grab a book on it from the Republican perspective (so no - one can cry lies!) and you'll find no mention of Corbyn in any peace talks, ever.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

There was an investigation lasting 2 years by the Telegraph into Corbyn and published in 2015. But I’m predicting you won’t believe a word of it because it’s a Tory paper. Numerous other papers have made their own enquiries going way back and came up with the same links to the IRA and more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...IRA-links.html

Yet Corbyn has never sued one paper in all these years for printing such ‘lies’ about him. Why do you think that is?

Some other Labour MP’s haven’t been squeaky clean when it comes to the IRA…..do they really want to open a hornets nest? There have been rumblings very recently on the news and in the press regarding Corbyns past which could very well blow up if he became PM.
His main cover - up is that he was 'working hard to achieve the peace process' which is a blatant lie. Peace was the last thing on his mind in the 70's when he was doing most of his hanging around with his IRA buddies and giving speeches at their rallies and promoting their cause....and he played no part whatsoever in the eventual peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. Grab a book on it from the Republican perspective (so no - one can cry lies!) and you'll find no mention of Corbyn in any peace talks, ever.

Still doesn't explain why he's still in power if these reports are viable. Until you can explain why he hasn't been ousted by an official investigation when so many people would want to see him go then I won't believe these reports since a lack of action says they aren't viable.

[user104658]

I'm sorry jet but there's just absolutely nothing in that - or in anything else I've been able to find - which suggests that Corbyn supports or condones any sort of violence by anyone... he has really repeatedly stated over the years that he does not believe war / violence to ever be the answer if anything. To the extent that he has been highly criticised for refusing to say that he would nuke innocent people (unlike May, who stated that she would do it without hesitation).

There appears to be an idea that any association with extreme / violent individuals MUST mean that the person is extreme or violent themselves... but it simply doesn't. There is no indication anywhere that Corbyn would ever condone or allow violent action. Anywhere.

If we're going to go down the route of making assumptions by simple association then - I'm sorry to say - we would have to apply the same to pretty much every high profile politician, making arms deals around the world and having champagne with warmongers.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sorry jet but there's just absolutely nothing in that - or in anything else I've been able to find - which suggests that Corbyn supports or condones any sort of violence by anyone... he has really repeatedly stated over the years that he does not believe war / violence to ever be the answer if anything. To the extent that he has been highly criticised for refusing to say that he would nuke innocent people (unlike May, who stated that she would do it without hesitation).

There appears to be an idea that any association with extreme / violent individuals MUST mean that the person is extreme or violent themselves... but it simply doesn't. There is no indication anywhere that Corbyn would ever condone or allow violent action. Anywhere.

If we're going to go down the route of making assumptions by simple association then - I'm sorry to say - we would have to apply the same to pretty much every high profile politician, making arms deals around the world and having champagne with warmongers.

Words fail me. I always had you down as a clued up poster too...

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sorry jet but there's just absolutely nothing in that - or in anything else I've been able to find - which suggests that Corbyn supports or condones any sort of violence by anyone... he has really repeatedly stated over the years that he does not believe war / violence to ever be the answer if anything. To the extent that he has been highly criticised for refusing to say that he would nuke innocent people (unlike May, who stated that she would do it without hesitation).

There appears to be an idea that any association with extreme / violent individuals MUST mean that the person is extreme or violent themselves... but it simply doesn't. There is no indication anywhere that Corbyn would ever condone or allow violent action. Anywhere.

If we're going to go down the route of making assumptions by simple association then - I'm sorry to say - we would have to apply the same to pretty much every high profile politician, making arms deals around the world and having champagne with warmongers.

I have never said, anywhere, that he is violent himself, but that he has supported those that are is out there for all to see. Except for those who refuse to see it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Words fail me. I always had you down as a clued up poster too...

Could you link to any evidence then to educate us please?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

I have never said, anywhere, that he is violent himself, but that he has supported those that are is out there for all to see. Except for those who refuse to see it.

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false . I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Could you link to any evidence then to educate us please?

I already have. You can't educate those who don't want to be educated about cuddly ole Jeremy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

I already have. You can't educate those who don't want to be educated about cuddly ole Jeremy.

All you have is one article by a right wing paper, what evidence is that?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false . I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

First rate,balanced and totally right post in my view.
Really well said, I've nothing to add to it.

This is the post of this thread for me.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false . I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

Indeed.

Also the posting of a telegraph link as 'facts' is a bit...odd.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know that it's a matter of refusing to see it... but like I said, if we had to automatically disqualify any politician who has kept company with other dodgy political figures in the past then there wouldn't be any politicians at all. Politics - and especially the rise through politics to anywhere near the top - is murky. Should it be? In an ideal world, no, but this idea that Corbyn has done anything worse than any other high-profile political figure in the past is just straight up false . I mean, let's not forget how many high profile Western politicians broke bread with Saddam Hussein. Let's not pretend that supporting the Israeli establishment isn't supporting violence. Let's not forget that the current Conservative government, and other past UK governments - without apology - sell military equipment in the middle east followed by a cosy dinner with the buyers.

I disagree that Corbyn has supported or endorsed violent action. I will agree that it seems like he has overlooked violence at times, perhaps put on the blinkers to suit a political agenda. And I genuinely do understand that you have a personal connection to this issue that makes it seem more serious than the "accepted" overlooking of violence within politics that occurs across the board (including right now with ConDUP)

So all you can really do is look at the bare facts; would Corbyn, if he became PM, realistically, invite or condone terrorism or violence in the UK? The answer is a flat "no".

The difference is that Corbyn had no political agenda to help bring peace or any other political necessity, he wasn't even an MP in the 70's when he was an outright IRA supporter. I suppose he just spoke at IRA rallies and commemorations for murderers as a fun day out. I suppose he was just an integral part of a hard line paper promoting violence for a wee hobby. I suppose he just buddied up to IRA killers because he was lonely. Yeah yeah...
and how many times do I have to say he had no part in the peace process whatsoever no matter how he tries to spin it.
You are forgetting many here in N.Ireland know of him and his past proclivities, but nobody will believe us, will they? We are all liars, us, the press and the the whole media, and he isn't. End of story. Fine.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

The difference is that Corbyn had no political agenda to help bring peace or any other political necessity, he wasn't even an MP in the 70's when he was an outright IRA supporter. I suppose he just spoke at IRA rallies and commemorations for murderers as a fun day out. I suppose he was just an integral part of a hard line paper promoting violence for a wee hobby. I suppose he just buddied up to IRA killers because he was lonely. Yeah yeah...
and how many times do I have to say he had no part in the peace process whatsoever no matter how he tries to spin it.
You are forgetting many here in N.Ireland know of him and his past proclivities, but nobody will believe us, will they? We are all liars, us, the press and the the whole media, and he isn't. End of story. Fine.

I said he overlooked the violence to suit his political agenda; I didn't say anything about him being part of the peace process. My point was that you seem to be of the opinion that other high profile politicians are a better option or haven't been close to similar people over the years (and let's face it, ongoing)... Which just is not true. You have a laser-focus on Corbyn because it specifically concerns NI and that's understandable, but in the process, you seem just as willing to disregard the shady connections that other current politicians have?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I said he overlooked the violence to suit his political agenda; I didn't say anything about him being part of the peace process. My point was that you seem to be of the opinion that other high profile politicians are a better option or haven't been close to similar people over the years (and let's face it, ongoing)... Which just is not true. You have a laser-focus on Corbyn because it specifically concerns NI and that's understandable, but in the process, you seem just as willing to disregard the shady connections that other current politicians have?

Oh I could discuss them all right if I had the time....and if I could keep my anger under control which is hard enough just discussing Corbyn.
My current focus is on Corbyn, who could possibly become the future Prime Minister of my country. He actually could get there at some point. If another politician with a shady past of supporting violence comes along and could become my PM, I'll concern myself with them too.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Oh I could discuss them all right if I had the time....and if I could keep my anger under control which is hard enough just discussing Corbyn.
My current focus is on Corbyn, who could possibly become the future Prime Minister of my country. He actually could get there at some point. If another politician with a shady past of supporting violence comes along and could become my PM, I'll concern myself with them too.

Like your current PM Theresa May who openly and proudly supplies the Middle East with weapons for profit?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Like your current PM Theresa May who openly and proudly supplies the Middle East with weapons for profit?

Yes, just like her. Cold bitch. She's already PM and and I don't want another one that supports violence, especially one who supported the violence that killed my friends. My bad.

[JTM45]

Selling arms to Saudi Arabia is DIRECTLY supporting violence, death and destruction in parts of the World that are struggling just to exist.
Hypocritical.............but then that what people like May are all about. Denounce violence unless there's money to be made from it, then it's acceptable.

[DemolitionRed]

Here is an interesting interview by Andrew Neil on Corbyn https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/0...l-transcript/# Neil directly asks some very pertinent questions and Corbyn answers are convincing. Corbyn openly talks about the accusation by Sean O’Callaghan, that Corbyn had no involvement with Good Friday. Its an interesting interview that we should all read.

Corbyn was watched and investigated by MI5 for 15 years and they came up with zilch.