[jet]

I don't feel a spectator blog would be impartial in this matter, it's not an excuse either that source clearly has an evident political leaning therefore can't be relied upon if you want to look at an issue with any degree of objectivity.

Why is objectivity needed here? They are saying it is wrong to go the route of a terrorist organization and their official represenatives, Sinn Fein, like Corbyn did, rather than the route of a consitutional political party wanting to achieve their aims by peaceful means. Do you disagree with that?

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I understand you see him and others as collaborators, I can see why and yet there may be have been a reason, to facilitate change? should there have been a definitively sinister motive then that surely would have more doggedly been seized upon by the opposition and the media now as they have dug and dug into his past affiliations and have come up with nothing that can with any clarity say that this man was instrumental in anything.
He may have been the only MP who publicly was seen to be in talks with the IRA that is not to say he was the only govt representative in discussion with them at that time.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...t-for-the-ira/

For the truth, we need to listen to the real architects of the peace process who insist that these men had nothing at all to do with it.

Former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Seamus Mallon, said “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.

Even Labour sympathisers found it hard to stomach Corbyn’s infatuation with the IRA. A 1996 editorial in the left-leaning Guardian, of all places, denounces his “romantic support for Irish Republicans” and states unequivocally: “Mr Corbyn's actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so”.

Working for peace does not involve only supporting and talking to one side, attending and speaking at the rallies and funerals of only one side and talking at Troops Out meetings and rallies.
He had to find some justification for all this, so 'I was in peace talks' was the weak excuse. It's laughable.

The people in peace talks had the authority, expertise and experience to do so, they didn't need a back bencher with anti British sentiments to do it for them.

The ‘digging’, which didn’t have to go very deep, has clearly shown that he was an IRA supporter. Many people accept that. Apart from my own knowledge there is plenty out there in big neon lights pointing directly at it if you didn't just see every single word and article as all lies and some evil conspiracy against him. It just isn't feasible.

But really Kizzy, there is no point in any further discussion. I know what I know and I’m not going to say anything different as I would be lying and you have your own views which you are entitled to.