[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

It's about Corbyn and his clique, so it could be said it is.

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

Really valid point again.

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.

Good luck with your efforts.

Unbelievable,someone,another agrees with because they are from N Ireland are considered an expert on Corbyn and the troubles.
I as a member of the Labour party,are deemed to know nothing as to Corbyn and then be classed as a supporter of terrorists or in a Jewish hating party.

They call that debate.
All powers that be help us.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really valid point again.

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.

Good luck with your efforts.

Unbelievable,someone,another agrees with because they are from N Ireland are considered an expert on Corbyn and the troubles.
I as a member of the Labour party,are deemed to know nothing as to Corbyn and then be classed as a supporter of terrorists or in a Jewish hating party.

They call that debate.
All powers that be help us.

I don't remember ever discussing Corbyn with you.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I've been through this many times and got nowhere.
Just constant one-sided put-down.

My whole Mothers side is Irish,I have family who also have lived in N Ireland near all their lives.
Although my mother hails from the South.

I get a different take on it from them from the one-sided presentation here that only suits their side of the issue.
No wanting to even consider the other take on things.

I got sick of the usual bandwagon presenting only one side.
Gave up on it.

What other take can I have on it but my own? My stance is, and always has been here, that I condemn the IRA and the Loyalists Paramilitary terrorists. I condemn and detest Corbyn for being an IRA terrorist supporter (he never supported the Loyalists.) If he had, I would detest him for that too.
I particularly detest the IRA for indiscriminately murdering over a thousand innocent civilians - women, children, babies and pregnant women among them, Catholic and Protestant. Loyalists murdered innocent adults also, mostly Catholics, they did not target children and babies etc.
What is your problem with this?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

What other take can I have on it but my own? My stance is, and always has been here, that I condemn the IRA and the Loyalists Paramilitary terrorists. I condemn and detest Corbyn for being an IRA terrorist supporter (he never supported the Loyalists.) If he had, I would detest him for that too.
I particularly detest the IRA for indiscriminately murdering over a thousand innocent civilians - women, children, babies and pregnant women among them, Catholic and Protestant. Loyalists murdered innocent adults also, mostly Catholics, they did not target children and babies etc.
What is your problem with this?

No problem at all but it is your take and not all in N Ireland take your position.
I don't see the evidence either of Corbyn being a supporter of terrorist murder either.
If he had really been and there was evidence he'd have been arrested, not be leader of a UK wide Party.

That comes from your hate of him and the IRA, things had to move on, in the name of peace.

Most have in N Ireland thankfully, some however haven't.

My take yes my take is different to yours.
You have discounted,applauded and supported by others, my take on the issue.
Just as I do not agree with yours,you do not agree with mine.

I don't see Corbyn as you do,if I believed he supported terrorist atrocities and murder,I would not be a member of the Labour party.
Just as I do not believe any Con leader either would support terrorist atrocities and murder either.

They could not be leaders of parties if that was the case.
You keep spouting the same accusations with no evidence presented.
If you and others supporting your accusations,had any evidence to really substantiate your very serious accusations against Corbyn,maybe you should present it to the authorities.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

No problem at all but it is your take and not all in N Ireland take your position.
I don't see the evidence either of Corbyn being a supporter of terrorist murder either.
If he had really been and there was evidence he'd have been arrested, not be leader of a UK wide Party.
.

I would like to think that most compassionate people would share my take on the N.Ireland terrorist atrocities, especially the murder of innocent children and babies.

What are they going to arrest Corbyn for now? It was long ago...there are photos of him at IRA rallies - he was arrested at one, but that doesn't get into the nitty gritty of his involvement; the only thing people can morally to do right now if they care at all is to read all the information for and against and listen to their consciences or their gut instincts. Do you really believe that the Labour Party powers that chose him as leader didn't know about his IRA affiliations?

Apart from what I know myself and can't reveal, (which you will of course dismiss and I blame no one for that), there is plenty out there about Corbyn's support of the IRA, and I know much of it to be true, but people just don't bother reading it, or don't believe it. All those people and articles are dismissed as lies; I'm lying, the former Nationalist First Minister of N. Ireland is lying, some members of the IRA themselves are lying....only Corbyn is telling the truth. How likely is that?

No doubt right wing supporters have made sure they got the dirt out there about him but that doesn't mean they are lies - much of it is not.....and
Corbyn isn't suing, for obvious reasons. What more can be done if people just turn away? Not everyone cares about this stuff, but I do and many others do.

I think if Corbyn getting to Downing st were to become a reality, many more questions about his past will be stepped up.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jet

I would like to think that most compassionate people would share my take on the N.Ireland terrorist atrocities, especially the murder of innocent children and babies.

What are they going to arrest Corbyn for now? It was long ago...there are photos of him at IRA rallies - he was arrested at one, but that doesn't get into the nitty gritty of his involvement; the only thing people can morally to do right now if they care at all is to read all the information for and against and listen to their consciences or their gut instincts. Do you really believe that the Labour Party powers that chose him as leader don't know about his IRA affiliations?

Apart from what I know myself and can't reveal, (which you will of course dismiss and I blame no one for that), there is plenty out there about Corbyn's support of the IRA, and I know much of it to be true, but people just don't bother reading it, or don't believe it. All those people and articles are dismissed as lies; I'm lying, the former Nationalist First Minister of N. Ireland is lying, some members of the IRA themselves are lying....only Corbyn is telling the truth. How likely is that?

No doubt right wing supporters have made sure they got the dirt out there about him but that doesn't mean they are lies - much of it is not.....and
Corbyn isn't suing, for obvious reasons. What more can be done if people just turn away? Not everyone cares about this stuff, but I do and many others do.

I think if Corbyn getting to Downing st were to become a reality, many more questions about his past will be stepped up.

Good grief,more brought up against him if he got to be PM.

You think the DM the Sun or even papers like the Telegraph haven't looked and scratched as far as they can on him.
Even moreso since he became leader.

So you are spouting false accusations you cannot substantiate publicly.

If he gets to be PM of the UK,in my view,he will be far more compassionate fairer and a better PM than this one we are lumbered with now,with her cruel heartless policies.

He likely has many faults,however false accusations and supposition are ridiculous unless the public accuser,an this is a public forum,has concrete evidence.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Good grief,more brought up against him if he got to be PM.

You think the DM the Sun or even papers like the Telegraph haven't looked and scratched as far as they can on him.
Even moreso since he became leader.

So you are spouting false accusations you cannot substantiate publicly.

If he gets to be PM of the UK,in my view,he will be far more compassionate fairer and a better PM than this one we are lumbered with now,with her cruel heartless policies.

He likely has many faults,however false accusations and supposition are ridiculous unless the public accuser,an this is a public forum,has concrete evidence.

Heh. This really wouldn't take much A ****ing rock would be a more compassionate, fairer and better PM than May is

Far rather Corbyn than May, thats for sure.

[jet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Good grief,more brought up against him if he got to be PM.

You think the DM the Sun or even papers like the Telegraph haven't looked and scratched as far as they can on him.
Even moreso since he became leader.

So you are spouting false accusations you cannot substantiate publicly.

If he gets to be PM of the UK,in my view,he will be far more compassionate fairer and a better PM than this one we are lumbered with now,with her cruel heartless policies.

He likely has many faults,however false accusations and supposition are ridiculous unless the public accuser,an this is a public forum,has concrete evidence.

They are false accusations and supposition to you. I know better, as my father and uncle were both in government at Stormont, and knew all about his activities. They have both passed away, and they will rest in peace.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

No, I don't believe that, I believe in non - censored discussion. However, with reference to the thread 'Here's something about Jacob Rees-Mogg'...it is clear we are not allowed to discuss 'the other side of the coin' and all references to the other side (Corbyn) are promptly deleted.
So why weren't all references to the Tories and May in this thread deleted, as it is about 'Corbyn and his leftist clique'?
And in future, will all references in a thread to any other than the politician in question be deleted? The rules on this forum are becoming very confusing indeed.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

No, I don't believe that, I believe in non - censored discussion. However, with reference to the thread 'Here's something about Jacob Rees-Mogg'...it is clear we are not allowed to discuss 'the other side of the coin' and all references to the other side (Corbyn) are promptly deleted.
So why weren't all references to the Tories and May in this thread deleted, as it is about 'Corbyn and his leftist clique'?
And in future, will all references in a thread to any other than the politician in question be deleted? The rules on this forum are becoming very confusing indeed.

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

Can you explain how its off topic to make comparisons between one possible future PM and another?

As for baiting, that came from you and others before there were any posts about Corbyn.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Can you explain how its off topic to make comparisons between one possible future PM and another?

As for baiting, that came from you and others before there were any posts about Corbyn.

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

Let's be accurate. Reese Mogg was being called scum and rancid and all sorts. I pointed out people would find that unacceptable if it were Corbyn. That is hardly any attack. It's fact.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Let's be accurate. Reese Mogg was being called scum and rancid and all sorts. I pointed out people would find that unacceptable if it were Corbyn. That is hardly any attack. It's fact.

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

That's not baiting, that's my opinion, he is scum and I explained why I thought that later in the topic. If you can't accept that and decided to help in taking the thread off topic then that's your problem.

You can't just brand opinions you dislike as baiting. If you disliked me calling him scum then you should have argued the point without trying to derail the topic into another Corbyn topic when he didn't have any relevance to the topic.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

Spot on jet.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

Who on earth do you think you are kidding. If one method of shut-down isn’t working just accuse posters of baiting instead. How very Convenient!!!