[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think more to the point is that many don't trust him and therefore have no confidence in him and it us up to him and his suppporters, if they want more to vote for him, to prove he is not a security risk.

It isn't up to others to prove he is. He needs to take some responsibility here.

Actually, in the context of this thread, the security risk issue was brought up by someone insisting that he is a risk. Therefore, the onus is on that person (and those who have agreed with the statement) to provide something that backs up that claim if they want it to be believed.

I think the rest of us were quite comfortable moving on with the discussion . It's not something we haven't all heard before, unless there's something compelling to be shared on the subject, it's a bit of a pointless distraction. Or is that maybe the point?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Actually, in the context of this thread, the security risk issue was brought up by someone insisting that he is a risk. Therefore, the onus is on that person (and those who have agreed with the statement) to provide something that backs up that claim if they want it to be believed.

I think the rest of us were quite comfortable moving on with the discussion . It's not something we haven't all heard before, unless there's something compelling to be shared on the subject, it's a bit of a pointless distraction. Or is that maybe the point?

Unfortunately for him many consider the issue more than a 'pointless distraction'. If he wants more support he has to clarify the situation and address in detail all the evidence out there that he is a sympathiser rather that a negotiator. He wants to be PM - the onus is on him.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Unfortunately for him many consider the issue more than a 'pointless distraction'. If he wants more support he has to clarify the situation and address in detail all the evidence out there that he is a sympathiser rather that a negotiator. He wants to be PM - the onus is on him.

Right but, again, that has very little to do with jet's claims on this specific thread;

The fact is Corbyn supporters just don't seem to care that he was a friend and sympathiser of murderers

This is the only question I am addressing by point ting out that it's simply a false statement that people "don't care" or (in your presumably intentionally offensive words) "will overlook it for money in their pockets"... But rather that plenty of people simply do not believe that he is a supporter of violence in any way. There's no evidence for it and, if there is, I'm asking for that evidence to be provided.


Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of discussion to be had about it on another thread that specifically asks that question? I'm saying it's being used to distract from the very current issue of May, her ability and credibility to lead, and the DUP.