[letmein]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm loving this desperation from the media to smear Corbyn in any way possible. Their fear is real.

Corbyn's fangurls are impossible. The man is a scumbag.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

A true anti-establishment politician.

A true nutcase.

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by letmein

Corbyn's fangurls are impossible. The man is a scumbag.

What about him makes you feel that?

Just out of curiosity. I've seen people call him delusional but scumbag or words to that effect, not so much.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I hope he is. A much better prospect than another four hellish years under a bunch of pig ****ers.

IMO he is completely the wrong choice for a labour leader, as was Ed Miliband (and Brown tbh), I believe in a lot of labours views, but 1. I couldn't justify not voting for my Tory MP who is amazing in our constituency and actually cares about our opinions and represents us rather than herself and 2. I couldn't trust Ed Miliband running a powerpoint presentation in year 4's assembly, let alone the country.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by letmein

They did everything in keeping with Islamic law; not providing Islamic extremists ammunition to kill troops. It's the same reason why Hitler's bunker's location is also kept a secret by the German government. Everything was done correctly. Yes, it fuels conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theorists will always come up with something no matter what.

...

In all seriousness though, I wish I could be like you, it would certainly make life a whole lot simpler.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

You are very wise.

Paul, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are complimenting Demolition Red for her post in error. I believe that you read the emboldened section believing it to be her view, when in reality, it was part of my post which she was quoting and which was in fact, the polar opposite of her views.

Here is my post in its entirety:

"There are people out there who are oh so willing to believe the most ludicrous, uncorroborated rubbish about ANYONE just as long as it suits their own political stance:

"Nigel Farage Ate My Albanian Immigrant Hamster"

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

It does not matter what colour Paul Revere's horse was when he announced that "The British Are Coming" - 'The British' were, indeed, 'Coming', and it does not matter what political bias (if any) the media has which reports these unsavoury facts about Corbyn - He SAID them. Provable, checkable - He SAID them.

I do not give a hoot what Corbyn and/or his PR Machine say now about;

"That was a long time ago and Jeremy's changed", "Oh, Jeremy was deliberately misquoted" etc. etc. The man is a treacherous fifth columnist who wishes to gain the most powerful political position in the UK so that he can render this country totally defenseless against threats from without, and totally defenseless to insurrection from within due to the unprecedented numbers of ANT-BRITISH immigrants he will have let flood into the UK with his nefarious policies.

"Jeremy's changed"

That's like the 'Zeus' virus - reputedly the most lethal 'Trojan Horse' virus known - suddenly saying (if it could talk) "I'm no longer a threat to your PC, I've changed. Let me in. Put me in charge of your PC's security".

Oh yeah. Jeremy. Sure."

If I am wrong, and you are indeed applauding Red's post, then I apologise.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes but my post came after reading numerous posts from you spouting off about what Corbyn is and what left wing thinkers are, based on right wing propaganda.

You, possibly more than anyone else here, belittle and make nonsense of every serious political debate we attempt to have.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Do you mean the corroborated truth from the Daily Mail?

These stories are edited to reflect an agenda and depending on which paper you read and depending on whether you have a capitalist or socialist view on politics, then these stories will reflect or oppose your opinions. Ultimately this isn't about simple capitalism or socialism, its about whether or not you and your loved ones feel looked after. What I mean by 'looked after' is of course subjective.

Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper. There are quite a few examples over the past few weeks where popular tabloids have taken only part of a whole story and turned it into something it isn't....Corbyn's support of Islamic extremists and the IRA is a case in point.

As a right wing thinker, you likely want to believe these stories because they give you the ammunition you need to demonise this man. I, on the other hand worry that such stories may or may not be true so I go about searching for the full story and the truth behind the headlines. Only the bigger picture shows truth and not some sensational headline from the right wing/left wing propaganda machine.

Any political opinion, whether right wing or left wing, should never be held with dogmatism and rigidity. Growth of knowledge is what's important here because if we can't have an intelligent political debate, all we can do is hit stalemate.

............................... End Of Quote.............................................

Wow - 'The Ego Has Landed'. I'm sorry, but EGO permeates every sentence of your post.

"As a right wing thinker, you likely want to believe these stories because they give you the ammunition you need to demonise this man. I, on the other hand worry that such stories may or may not be true so I go about searching for the full story and the truth behind the headlines.]Only the bigger picture shows truth and not some sensational headline from the right wing/left wing propaganda machine."

Just where, in the many posts which I have contributed to this forum, do you educe that I am so poorly read or narrowly informed, that I formulate my opinions from just one source?

I have repeatedly stressed that I do not make up my mind based upon the first thing I read or see, and that I cross-reference and research further before forming an opinion - and this includes directly informing you of these facts on other threads.

I certainly do not need lessons from you on this subject - especially in such a patronising post which seems as if it has been written by a pompous Primary School teacher for the benefit of her class of 7 year olds.

"Ultimately this isn't about simple capitalism or socialism, its about whether or not you and your loved ones feel looked after. What I mean by 'looked after' is of course subjective."

Subjective, it certainly is. 'Looked after'? Now let me see:

Would I feel my children and grandchildrens future would be assured and that they would be 'looked after' under Corbyn's ideal United Kingdom?

No Nuclear Deterrent at a time when more than ever we need one - because of the threat from insane Islamic Terrorists who will stop at nothing to destroy our Christian Western Demoracy and rebuild another Mecca Phoenix-like from the ashes?

No Military Services at all, or a decimated token 'Banana Republic' army at best, where 'Boots On Ground' means very few boots, and severely worn, ill-fitting ones at best?

Oh I could go on-and-on, but no need, because MY answer is - No. I would NOT feel that I or my loved ones would be 'Looked after'. NEXT:

"Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper. There are quite a few examples over the past few weeks where popular tabloids have taken only part of a whole story and turned it into something it isn't....Corbyn's support of Islamic extremists and the IRA is a case in point."

Here, I will simply challenge you to abandon your rhetoric and debate me on whether Corbyn is an anti-UK terrorist sympathiser or not, and whether he has, indeed, said the things he is quoted in MANY media reports of having said.

Incidentally, your: "Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper." is offensive and arrogant. You are not the only one who has "a keen political interest", though your sentence is 'self-elevating' in this respect.

"Any political opinion, whether right wing or left wing, should never be held with dogmatism and rigidity. Growth of knowledge is what's important here because if we can't have an intelligent political debate, all we can do is hit stalemate."

I could not agree more, but "intelligent political debate" does not mean ignoring FACTS - CORROBORATED HARD TRUTHS - once presented by the other side, and continuing on with views which such hard facts have demolished as wrong.

So let us debate.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Yes but my post came after reading numerous posts from you spouting off about what Corbyn is and what left wing thinkers are, based on right wing propaganda.

You, possibly more than anyone else here, belittle and make nonsense of every serious political debate we attempt to have.

Not based upon 'Right Wing propaganda - or any other 'propaganda', only upon unimpeachable hard historical FACT. Corbyn's personal ideologies are transparent by his own words and deeds, and are historically documented for the world to see and read and hear.

No one has fabricated all the videos featuring this dangerous idiot, and no one has forged all the written words he has uttered in public.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Paul, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are complimenting Demolition Red for her post in error. I believe that you read the emboldened section believing it to be her view, when in reality, it was part of my post which she was quoting and which was in fact, the polar opposite of her views.

Here is my post in its entirety:

"There are people out there who are oh so willing to believe the most ludicrous, uncorroborated rubbish about ANYONE just as long as it suits their own political stance:

"Nigel Farage Ate My Albanian Immigrant Hamster"

But let genuine reportage surface which speaks the CORROBORATED truth about one of their political dah-lings and they are up in arms decreeing it all "Fake", "Character Assassination", and "Lies", or worse - they lambaste the sources of the reports as; "Right Wing Propagandists".

It does not matter what colour Paul Revere's horse was when he announced that "The British Are Coming" - 'The British' were, indeed, 'Coming', and it does not matter what political bias (if any) the media has which reports these unsavoury facts about Corbyn - He SAID them. Provable, checkable - He SAID them.

I do not give a hoot what Corbyn and/or his PR Machine say now about;

"That was a long time ago and Jeremy's changed", "Oh, Jeremy was deliberately misquoted" etc. etc. The man is a treacherous fifth columnist who wishes to gain the most powerful political position in the UK so that he can render this country totally defenseless against threats from without, and totally defenseless to insurrection from within due to the unprecedented numbers of ANT-BRITISH immigrants he will have let flood into the UK with his nefarious policies.

"Jeremy's changed"

That's like the 'Zeus' virus - reputedly the most lethal 'Trojan Horse' virus known - suddenly saying (if it could talk) "I'm no longer a threat to your PC, I've changed. Let me in. Put me in charge of your PC's security".

Oh yeah. Jeremy. Sure."

If I am wrong, and you are indeed applauding Red's post, then I apologise.

IIRC i was complementing the very last paragraph of Reds post.IIRC,It was late.I use my phone on here though and don't know how to embolden.But you're right i did'nt know that was a quote from your post.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm taking a quick coffee break from work, which is just about over, so I don't have time to properly respond at this moment in time.

I'm not ignoring this and will respond later.

[user104658]

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that whilst I actually like and agree with a lot of what Corbyn has to say and what he stands for... He is actually pretty awful at expressing himself and his intentions clearly and his good messages are ham-fisted (wahey Dave...) and end up swaying between extreme and naive.

It's a shame. What we need is a Corbyn 20 years younger with a stronger, clearer voice.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that whilst I actually like and agree with a lot of what Corbyn has to say and what he stands for... He is actually pretty awful at expressing himself and his intentions clearly and his good messages are ham-fisted (wahey Dave...) and end up swaying between extreme and naive.

It's a shame. What we need is a Corbyn 20 years younger with a stronger, clearer voice.

That's part of the reason no one had really heard of him before the leadership campaign. He wasn't mainstream enough to be offered a role in government but he also wasn't charismatic enough to become a prominent left-winger in his own right like Tony Benn was and, to a lesser extent, someone like Dennis Skinner. Corbyn has just floated around for thirty odd years not making much of an impact on anyone. Yes he has now mobilised a certain demographic but I think that was more a case of being in the right place at the right time for him.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

That's part of the reason no one had really heard of him before the leadership campaign. He wasn't mainstream enough to be offered a role in government but he also wasn't charismatic enough to become a prominent left-winger in his own right like Tony Benn was and, to a lesser extent, someone like Dennis Skinner. Corbyn has just floated around for thirty odd years not making much of an impact on anyone. Yes he has now mobilised a certain demographic but I think that was more a case of being in the right place at the right time for him.

There are many reasons Corbyn hasn't been in the lime light regarding front row politics. New Labour put Corbyn where he would be most useful but because of his brand of left wing politics they needed to ensure they kept him busy.

Corbyn was used (along with others) on behalf of the labour party, to set about peace talks with Sinn Fein, Jerry Adams, Fatah, Hezbollah and Hamas. He's the man who has made a life long commitment to 'his' cause; the man who was Islington North local MP for 32 years; the man with the lowest expenses claims of any MP on record and a champion of controversial causes.

Even if people hate Corbyn's ideas, He's the fly in the ointment that will bring the Tory's racing back towards middle ground. He is a kick up the ass and just what the Tories needed.

[DemolitionRed]

Wow - 'The Ego Has Landed'. I'm sorry, but EGO permeates every sentence of your post.

Ego is Ego; it’s neither negative or positive and its something we all poses because its what forms our personality so yes, my ego represented what I said in my post and your ego represents your response to me.

I was deliberately careful with my words; tiptoed on eggshells if you like, NOT to overly offend you but for someone who is so easily offended (by me), I may as well of pitched a tent on your property and thrown your kittens down the well.

I certainly do not need lessons from you on this subject - especially in such a patronising post which seems as if it has been written by a pompous Primary School teacher for the benefit of her class of 7 year olds.

For goodness sake, calm down. You, the man who has done little more than patronize virtually everything I’ve ever had to say on here, is now getting a monk on because he himself feels patronized...how very dare I?!?!. If you can’t take a taste your own medicine, then I suggest you stop baiting me at every opportunity. Unlike you, I rarely get personal but that doesn’t mean I can’t.

Would I feel my children and grandchildrens future would be assured and that they would be 'looked after' under Corbyn's ideal United Kingdom?

Like I said, its subjective. You have every right to feel the way you do; the same goes for me.

Here, I will simply challenge you to abandon your rhetoric and debate me on whether Corbyn is an anti-UK terrorist sympathiser or not, and whether he has, indeed, said the things he is quoted in MANY media reports of having said.

Incidentally, your: "Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper." is offensive and arrogant. You are not the only one who has "a keen political interest", though your sentence is 'self-elevating' in this respect.


Here we go again. You really do need to calm down and stop taking things SO personally.
I’ve already written about the ‘lies’ regarding Corbyn being an anti-UK terrorist sympathizer but I’ll say this one more time.

The Tory party were the ones who started the peace talks with NI. When Labour got elected in 1997 Corbyn was asked (on behalf of the government) to act as 'go between'. The big sticking point was the release of political prisoners because without that, there would be no peace talks. Corbyn and his staff, under direct government instruction, spent months talking to both prisoners and their reps regarding the proposed 'prisoner release scheme'. This was his key role in getting the Good Friday agreement. Without talking to the Sinn Fein the IRA could not of agreed to any peace agreement.

I can't prove this is true, just as you can't prove this is untrue but this was well documented long before you or I had ever heard of Corbyn.

I can show you words written and voiced by Corbyn regarding the reasons behind his assosiation with Raed Salah, Hamas, Hezbollah but I can't categorically tell you he's speaking the truth, though understanding his involvement in The Good Friday Agreement, I could probably summarise his words are truth.

Do you have proof that this man is a traitor? If so I'm all ears.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

There are many reasons Corbyn hasn't been in the lime light regarding front row politics. New Labour put Corbyn where he would be most useful but because of his brand of left wing politics they needed to ensure they kept him busy.

Corbyn was used (along with others) on behalf of the labour party, to set about peace talks with Sinn Fein, Jerry Adams, Fatah, Hezbollah and Hamas. He's the man who has made a life long commitment to 'his' cause; the man who was Islington North local MP for 32 years; the man with the lowest expenses claims of any MP on record and a champion of controversial causes.

Even if people hate Corbyn's ideas, He's the fly in the ointment that will bring the Tory's racing back towards middle ground. He is a kick up the ass and just what the Tories needed.

Admittedly Corbyn became an MP at the height of defeat for Labour's left but he was still an MP for years before the birth of New Labour, he never made an impact then and he never made an impact after.

Corbyn has always been ideologically predisposed to Irish republicanism and lets be clear that his position on the IRA was always well removed from any British government in power throughout the Troubles. The same is true of Hezbollah and Hamas. Did he ever actually engage with those latter two in an official capacity?

[Livia]

The Tories are delighted with Corbyn. There were stories of Tories signing up to Labour just to vote him in and I believe that to be true. It couldn't have worked out better for them.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Wow - 'The Ego Has Landed'. I'm sorry, but EGO permeates every sentence of your post.

Ego is Ego; it’s neither negative or positive and its something we all poses because its what forms our personality so yes, my ego represented what I said in my post and your ego represents your response to me.

I was deliberately careful with my words; tiptoed on eggshells if you like, NOT to overly offend you but for someone who is so easily offended (by me), I may as well of pitched a tent on your property and thrown your kittens down the well.

I certainly do not need lessons from you on this subject - especially in such a patronising post which seems as if it has been written by a pompous Primary School teacher for the benefit of her class of 7 year olds.

For goodness sake, calm down. You, the man who has done little more than patronize virtually everything I’ve ever had to say on here, is now getting a monk on because he himself feels patronized...how very dare I?!?!. If you can’t take a taste your own medicine, then I suggest you stop baiting me at every opportunity. Unlike you, I rarely get personal but that doesn’t mean I can’t.

Would I feel my children and grandchildrens future would be assured and that they would be 'looked after' under Corbyn's ideal United Kingdom?

Like I said, its subjective. You have every right to feel the way you do; the same goes for me.

Here, I will simply challenge you to abandon your rhetoric and debate me on whether Corbyn is an anti-UK terrorist sympathiser or not, and whether he has, indeed, said the things he is quoted in MANY media reports of having said.

Incidentally, your: "Some people with a keen political interest, won't take anything a right wing or a left wing story tells us without going off and digging a little deeper." is offensive and arrogant. You are not the only one who has "a keen political interest", though your sentence is 'self-elevating' in this respect.


Here we go again. You really do need to calm down and stop taking things SO personally.
I’ve already written about the ‘lies’ regarding Corbyn being an anti-UK terrorist sympathizer but I’ll say this one more time.

The Tory party were the ones who started the peace talks with NI. When Labour got elected in 1997 Corbyn was asked (on behalf of the government) to act as 'go between'. The big sticking point was the release of political prisoners because without that, there would be no peace talks. Corbyn and his staff, under direct government instruction, spent months talking to both prisoners and their reps regarding the proposed 'prisoner release scheme'. This was his key role in getting the Good Friday agreement. Without talking to the Sinn Fein the IRA could not of agreed to any peace agreement.

I can't prove this is true, just as you can't prove this is untrue but this was well documented long before you or I had ever heard of Corbyn.

I can show you words written and voiced by Corbyn regarding the reasons behind his assosiation with Raed Salah, Hamas, Hezbollah but I can't categorically tell you he's speaking the truth, though understanding his involvement in The Good Friday Agreement, I could probably summarise his words are truth.
w
Dao you have proof that this man is a traitor? If so I'm all ears.

Laughing My Old Black Ass Off. Utter meaningless twaddle.

Please show me proof where I have 'baited' you 'at every opportunity'?

"tiptoed on eggshells if you like, NOT to overly offend" me? B.S.

You mean you spout 'Leftie' rhetoric then when challenged with the truth, you get the jitters through having no appropriate response - as now; a whole lotta typing which says zilch.

As for; "Calm down, stop taking things so personally", I am calm, but do take things personally when things are personal - no matter what you say now.

And: "I’ve already written about the ‘lies’ regarding Corbyn being an anti-UK terrorist sympathizer but I’ll say this one more time."

Listen to yourself! Do you think that because you call the truth a lie that this convinces? WHO are you. We can read, listen, and watch with our own senses, just as we can evaluate the information that we absorb from reading, listening and watching to formulate our own opinions on what is the truth or not.

And I am not some fat French cafe owner called Renee Artois, so you can save the; "Listen carefully, I will say this only once" routine.

In addition, how old are you, because - again - you presume too much when you state: "... but this was well documented long before you or I had ever heard of Corbyn." because I am old enough to have been well aware of Corbyn decades ago when I was actually a staunch Labour supporter and activist.

Your apologetics for Corbyn's involvement with murdering IRA terrorists and Hezbollah and Hamas won't wash with me I'm afraid, because logical fool that I am, I trust 30 years of Corbyn's own words and deeds far more than I trust 10 minutes of hastily cabbaged together white-washing and damage limitation now that the perennial shadow-dweller has been afforded the spotlight and a chance to become PM.

Finally luvvie, as far as providing you with proof that Corbyn is a traitor - define 'traitor', because your leftie definition will definitely be far removed from mine.

The truth is out there - Google it.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Admittedly Corbyn became an MP at the height of defeat for Labour's left but he was still an MP for years before the birth of New Labour, he never made an impact then and he never made an impact after.

Corbyn has always been ideologically predisposed to Irish republicanism and lets be clear that his position on the IRA was always well removed from any British government in power throughout the Troubles. The same is true of Hezbollah and Hamas. Did he ever actually engage with those latter two in an official capacity?

The Tories were the ones who started peace talks in Northern Ireland. Prior to that though, John Hume and Gerry Adams had already started peace talks and were negotiating a ceasefire. All of this has stalled before the Labour party were elected in 1997. This is when Mo Mowlan, on behalf of the British Government asked for Corbyn to be go between.

This is a question put to Corbyn by the Jewish Chronicle and beneath is Corbyn's reply

Why do you associate with Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as your “friends”?

The term ‘friends’ was used purely as diplomatic language in the context of dialogue, not an endorsement of a particular set of views. In the difficult quest of establishing a peace, it is common for the term “friend” to be used as part of the process. “Friend” in this case becomes a term of diplomacy as an aid to dialogue between disparate groups rather than a description of a relationship or an endorsement of a set of views.

Jeremy has met many people with whom he profoundly disagrees, in order to try to promote a peace process. He has supported and continues to support peace and reconciliation processes in South Africa, Latin and Central America, Ireland and of course in the Middle East. He believes it is necessary to speak to people with whom there is disagreement – merely talking to people who already agree won't bring about a settlement.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14...even-questions

[DemolitionRed]

This ones for you Kirk

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The Tories were the ones who started peace talks in Northern Ireland. Prior to that though, John Hume and Gerry Adams had already started peace talks and were negotiating a ceasefire. All of this has stalled before the Labour party were elected in 1997. This is when Mo Mowlan, on behalf of the British Government asked for Corbyn to be go between.

This is a question put to Corbyn by the Jewish Chronicle and beneath is Corbyn's reply

Why do you associate with Hamas and Hezbollah and refer to them as your “friends”?

The term ‘friends’ was used purely as diplomatic language in the context of dialogue, not an endorsement of a particular set of views. In the difficult quest of establishing a peace, it is common for the term “friend” to be used as part of the process. “Friend” in this case becomes a term of diplomacy as an aid to dialogue between disparate groups rather than a description of a relationship or an endorsement of a set of views.

Jeremy has met many people with whom he profoundly disagrees, in order to try to promote a peace process. He has supported and continues to support peace and reconciliation processes in South Africa, Latin and Central America, Ireland and of course in the Middle East. He believes it is necessary to speak to people with whom there is disagreement – merely talking to people who already agree won't bring about a settlement.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/14...even-questions

Corbyn - NOW says - So what?

Did he once during those same speeches call the Israelis our 'FRIENDS'?

Did he hell - he called them; 'The Israelis'

And that was AFTER he insinuated that they were at fault for not granting one of his terrorist 'friends' leave to come here.

You can fool yourself but you ain't gonna fool old Kirk. Give me an Israeli any day and you can have Hezbollah and Hammas round to yours for tea - as long as it's not in this country.

[user104658]

You're fighting a losing battle there DR. Some people will never understand why Corbyn would want to engage diplomatically with terrorist leaders using gentle language, because they don't believe that those terrorists "deserve" the language of peace over bullets and bombs "because of the things they have done", perhaps because they see it as weak, or pandering. Even if that staunch refusal to engage in such communication means risking the lives of thousands more innocent people.

People prefer revenge but... meh. People are generally vengeful in all aspects of life.

[JoshBB]

People are really clutching at straws to criticise JC aren't they

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You're fighting a losing battle there DR. Some people will never understand why Corbyn would want to engage diplomatically with terrorist leaders using gentle language, because they don't believe that those terrorists "deserve" the language of peace over bullets and bombs "because of the things they have done", perhaps because they see it as weak, or pandering. Even if that staunch refusal to engage in such communication means risking the lives of thousands more innocent people.

People prefer revenge but... meh. People are generally vengeful in all aspects of life.

Come off it T.S, it has zilch to do with a 'statesman' engaging diplomatically with terrorists for the 'greater good' - Corbyn admires and identifies with these murdering bastards. He has never once called the Israelis his 'friends' and is pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli in thought word and deed just as much as he was pro IRA before that.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

People are really clutching at straws to criticise JC aren't they

And a lot of 'people' are too blind to see the Haystack let alone where there is a straw to clutch.

Should have gone to specsavers.