Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Nuts said:
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ok lets make it simple. There's a footy match. At one end are the Israeli Fans, At the other are Hamas and the Palastinians. Along the sides are the neutral onlookers.

Which end of the ground does Jeremy buy a ticket for?
 
Nuts said:
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all. :lol:
Click to expand...

Feel free to expand on that and give us a convincing argument against these smears then rather than a sweeping generalisation about people believeing the daily mail - I can't stand that rag but even I know that Corbyn has a dubious past to say the least.
 
Nuts said:
I used to find this thread depressing and upsetting. Now, I laugh at the number of posters who’ve bought the Mail’s smears hook, line and sinker. You can see why the media persist when so many of you lot just believe it all. :lol:
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, it's depressing and upsetting seeing so many people I politically align with tying to convince themselves the sky is pink because Corbyn says it is and the Canary contacted a man in a tinfoil hat who told them it was too.

All in defence of a cheerleader for a Tory-led Brexit which all his supporters think is the height of insanity.

And perhaps the most amusing angle of this current thing is that Corbyn supporters are currently attacking anyone that doesn't believe that Corbyn is never wrong for believing 'smears' whilst crucifying Margaret Hodge for words that she never said because a Rupert Murdoch ran news agency put out a tweet which paraphrased her rather than quoted her directly.
 
Last edited:
NinjaFletch said:
And perhaps the most amusing angle of this current thing is that Corbyn supporters are currently attacking anyone that doesn't believe that Corbyn is never wrong for believing 'smears' whilst crucifying Margaret Hodge for words that she never said because a Rupert Murdoch ran news agency put out a tweet which paraphrased her rather than quoted her directly.
Click to expand...
Which of the reported words didn't she say?
 
Dobba said:
Which bit didn't she say?
Click to expand...

Well absolutely nothing in that second tweet in their chain.

Now you might have issues with what she did say, and that's a legitimate debate to have. Here's an article which I'm not sure I necessarily agree with which argues one side of that debate.

But considering we've all defended Corbyn in the past for subtle changes in wording between what he said and how it was reported it's disingenuous at best to start attacking those critical of him because Sky News have smashed together quotes from 4 different sentences into a (deliberately?) scandalous paraphrase.
 
Another day, another terrorist link

Tony-Blair-Jeremy-Corbyn-626750.jpg
 
Honest John said:
Ok lets make it simple. There's a footy match. At one end are the Israeli Fans, At the other are Hamas and the Palastinians. Along the sides are the neutral onlookers.

Which end of the ground does Jeremy buy a ticket for?
Click to expand...
I gave up talking to you a week ago when you claimed to never read any newspapers and insisted on ending a discussion with ‘End of.’.

There’s no point, is there?
 
balaks said:
Feel free to expand on that and give us a convincing argument against these smears then rather than a sweeping generalisation about people believeing the daily mail - I can't stand that rag but even I know that Corbyn has a dubious past to say the least.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe he gave a terrorist supporting, Muslim Brotherhood salute. I don’t believe the Stasi had a file on him. I don’t believe he was a Czech spy, selling British secrets to the communists. I don’t believe he voted Leave as the Mail reported. I don’t believe, as the Sunday Times reported, that Corbyn colluded with the Russians to win the UK general election. I don’t believe he ‘mourned’ the death of Bin Laden as Cameron suggested.

I believe he’s done more than any other Labour leader to condemn anti-semitism and address the problem and I do believe this has been politicised and used in a massively distasteful way.
 
Nuts said:
I don’t believe he gave a terrorist supporting, Muslim Brotherhood salute. I don’t believe the Stasi had a file on him. I don’t believe he was a Czech spy, selling British secrets to the communists. I don’t believe he voted Leave as the Mail reported. I don’t believe, as the Sunday Times reported, that Corbyn colluded with the Russians to win the UK general election. I don’t believe he ‘mourned’ the death of Bin Laden as Cameron suggested.

I believe he’s done more than any other Labour leader to condemn anti-semitism and address the problem and I do believe this has been politicised and used in a massively distasteful way.
Click to expand...

No one believes those which is why we're not discussing them. I notice you've missed out the ones people have said they do believe though.
 
Last edited:
NinjaFletch said:
Well absolutely nothing in that second tweet in their chain.

Now you might have issues with what she did say, and that's a legitimate debate to have. Here's an article which I'm not sure I necessarily agree with which argues one side of that debate.

But considering we've all defended Corbyn in the past for subtle changes in wording between what he said and how it was reported it's disingenuous at best to start attacking those critical of him because Sky News have smashed together quotes from 4 different sentences into a (deliberately?) scandalous paraphrase.
Click to expand...
So, is there a different full interview video to the one on their website? Because that's the only one I've seen and I'm not getting the idea that the tweet is a scandalous paraphrase.

Edit: I find it odd that Stephen, who I'm a fan of, didn't include the opening sentence from that video in his article.
 
Last edited:
Nuts said:
I don’t believe he gave a terrorist supporting, Muslim Brotherhood salute. I don’t believe the Stasi had a file on him. I don’t believe he was a Czech spy, selling British secrets to the communists. I don’t believe he voted Leave as the Mail reported. I don’t believe, as the Sunday Times reported, that Corbyn colluded with the Russians to win the UK general election. I don’t believe he ‘mourned’ the death of Bin Laden as Cameron suggested.

I believe he’s done more than any other Labour leader to condemn anti-semitism and address the problem and I do believe this has been politicised and used in a massively distasteful way.
Click to expand...

I don't believe any of that either - although it is clear he does not want the UK to remain in the EU whether he voted for it or abstained. He has done plenty of other stuff though that I think makes him an absolutely useless opposition leader.
 
NinjaFletch said:
No one believes those which is why we're not discussing them. I notice you've missed out the ones people have said they do believe though.
Click to expand...
Oh OK. But let’s keep using the same sources and deciding for ourselves which ones we’ll believe in then eh? :lol:
 
Nuts said:
Oh OK. But let’s keep using the same sources and deciding for ourselves which ones we’ll believe in then eh? :lol:
Click to expand...

Same sources? Are you still assuming we are all raving Daily Mail readers? You realise that there are tons of articles from different sources all reporting the same thing over the last couple of decades?
 
balaks said:
I don't believe any of that either - although it is clear he does not want the UK to remain in the EU whether he voted for it or abstained. He has done plenty of other stuff though that I think makes him an absolutely useless opposition leader.
Click to expand...
No it’s not clear. There’s absolutely no point discussing anything if you simply make things up.
 
balaks said:
Same sources? Are you still assuming we are all raving Daily Mail readers? You realise that there are tons of articles from different sources all reporting the same thing over the last couple of decades?
Click to expand...
Give us some examples of smears that actually stick then.
 
Dobba said:
So, is there a different full interview video to the one on their website? Because that's the only one I've seen and I'm not getting the idea that the tweet is a scandalous paraphrase.
Click to expand...

Ah right, so the video where she doesn't say what Sky have said that she says is not proof enough that she didn't say what they said she says?

I really don't care if you think she was still wrong or right to say what she did, but it's frankly a load of absolute bollocks that people are perfectly happy to hang people out to dry because of misreported quotes if that person is critical of Corbyn, when the same people have spent years howling into the void that the media misrepresent everything Corbyn says.

Nuts said:
Oh OK. But let’s keep using the same sources and deciding for ourselves which ones we’ll believe in then eh? :lol:
Click to expand...

Err, yeah? That's how critical thinking and source criticism works, obviously. I mean, Christ, I don't think you understand quite how stupid a statement that is, I'm absolutely baffled you could think anything other than that.
 
Nuts said:
Give us some examples of smears that actually stick then.
Click to expand...

Look at the man's history - he has over decades consistently been associated with terrorists - the facts are quite clear. This current nonsense is blown all out of proportion and personally I don't care too much about a wreath getting laid but because of his past - which is a fact - he will forever be tarnished by it and any hint he is acting in the same way now is rightly being highlighted.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Ah right, so the video where she doesn't say what Sky have said that she says is not proof enough that she didn't say what they said she says?

I really don't care if you think she was still wrong or right to say what she did, but it's frankly a load of absolute bollocks that people are perfectly happy to hang people out to dry because of misreported quotes if that person is critical of Corbyn, when the same people have spent years howling into the void that the media misrepresent everything Corbyn says.
Click to expand...
Is it that she didn't say the word Nazi? I mean there's a chance she was referring to pre-1933 Germany in her comments regarding 'Germany in the 30s', but she's hardly in a rush to clarify that if she was and comparing that to receiving a letter for swearing in a colleague's face would still be utterly abhorrent.

Obviously this wouldn't be needed if the interviewer had asked for clarification at the time, rather than working on her concerned face for the camera but that's another matter.
 
Last edited:
balaks said:
Look at the man's history - he has over decades consistently been associated with terrorists - the facts are quite clear. This current nonsense is blown all out of proportion and personally I don't care too much about a wreath getting laid but because of his past - which is a fact - he will forever be tarnished by it and any hint he is acting in the same way now is rightly being highlighted.
Click to expand...
This again. What does it even mean? What do people who believe all this - again, set out all along by the right wing press - fear he’s going to do?

He’s a CND supporting peace campaigner who believes that peace comes from negotiations between both sides rather than more bombs.

I’m sure you’ll be horny to find something ooh so sinister and darker than that but I’ll just keep repeating the above response.
 
balaks said:
Look at the man's history - he has over decades consistently been associated with terrorists - the facts are quite clear. This current nonsense is blown all out of proportion and personally I don't care too much about a wreath getting laid but because of his past - which is a fact - he will forever be tarnished by it and any hint he is acting in the same way now is rightly being highlighted.
Click to expand...
‘His past is a fact’. Which bit, and what are you talking about?
 
balaks said:
There is plenty of evidence out there that supports this - if you can't be arsed reading about it yourself they why should we bother wasting time trying to convince you? Start by googling Corbyn and IRA and take it from there.
Click to expand...
No, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest he’s communicated with unsavoury factions, not offering bonafide support in line with their methods.

I’ve already said this - terrorists and those who sympathise with them do not advocate peaceful talks and discussions, they merely embrace and double down on violent means to their ends. Last I checked Corbyn is a pacifist who’s never called on violence as being an acceptable tool to tackle oppression, and he’s been pretty consistent with that stance. Suggesting that we enter peace talks with adversarial factions doesn’t mean he’s a flag bearer for terrorism. If that were the case then pretty much every government in recent history would be labelled as supporters of terrorism.

This government has offered its diplomatic weight behind the Syrian opposition forces, the bulk of which is made up of Al Qaeda affiliated factions, are we going to condemn it a supporter of terrorism?

Simply saying ‘but Hamas! IRA!’ without offering a semblance of context is a lazy stick to beat him with.
 
Kaos said:
No, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest he’s communicated with unsavoury factions, not offering bonafide support in line with their methods.

I’ve already said this - terrorists and those who sympathise with them do not advocate peaceful talks and discussions, they merely embrace and double down on violent means to their ends. Last I checked Corbyn is a pacifist who’s never called on violence as being an acceptable tool to tackle oppression, and he’s been pretty consistent with that stance. Suggesting that we enter peace talks with adversarial factions doesn’t mean he’s a flag bearer for terrorism. If that were the case then pretty much every government in recent history would be labelled as supporters of terrorism.

This government has offered its diplomatic weight behind the Syrian opposition forces, the bulk of which is made up of Al Qaeda affiliated factions, are we going to condemn it a supporter of terrorism?

Simply saying ‘but Hamas! IRA!’ without offering a semblance of context is a lazy stick to beat him with.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
Honest John said:
Ok lets make it simple. There's a footy match. At one end are the Israeli Fans, At the other are Hamas and the Palastinians. Along the sides are the neutral onlookers.

Which end of the ground does Jeremy buy a ticket for?
Click to expand...
And now we’ve reached peak ludicrous.

Why are you bundling all Palestinians with Hamas?
 
Paying attention to the things he has said, the causes he has supported, the company he has kept and the people with whom he had chosen to associate over the years is such a lazy stick to beat him with.


We should just stare at the pic of him at the anti apartheid protest and forget everything else.
 
Oscie said:
Paying attention to the things he has said, the causes he has supported, the company he has kept and the people with whom he had chosen to associate over the years is such a lazy stick to beat him with.
Click to expand...
Just listen to your language: ‘the company he has kept’. ‘The people with whom he has chosen to associate’, ‘the causes he has supported’.

Talk about lazy sticks...
 
Oscie said:
Paying attention to the things he has said, the causes he has supported, the company he has kept and the people with whom he had chosen to associate over the years is such a lazy stick to beat him with.


We should just stare at the pic of him at the anti apartheid protest and forget everything else.
Click to expand...
What’s he said that alludes he supports the the violent means championed by terrorists?

As for who’s he’s been in vicinity to, unless he’s dorm buddies with the Hamas rank and file and stood next to their leaders while they call for the destruction of their enemies, it’s a tenuous and lazy smear devoid of any context. Perhaps he should have taken a leaf out of the current government’s book and associated with white supremacists like Steve Bannon?
 
Honest John said:
Because I put all the Israelis up the other end.

Corbyn is not a peacemonger, he picks a side!
Click to expand...
And that’s why your analogy is absurd. You’ve broken down the notoriously complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a bloody football match consisting of two sides.

And newsflash - peace initiatives only come to fruition when you engage both sides in a fruitful discussions. Simply humouring the Israeli rhetoric and hoping the Palestinians succumb to the status quo through sheer attritional oppression is not a bonafide strategy for peace. To simply engage the other side that’s already been grossly disenfranchised is not an endorsement of terror.
 
Kaos said:
And that’s why your analogy is absurd. You’ve broken down the notoriously complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a bloody football match consisting of two sides.

And newsflash - peace initiatives only come to fruition when you engage both sides in a fruitful discussions. Simply humouring the Israeli rhetoric and hoping the Palestinians succumb to the status quo through sheer attritional oppression is not a bonafide strategy for peace. To simply engage the other side that’s already been grossly disenfranchised is not an endorsement of terror.
Click to expand...
For the purposes of assessing Corbyn's credentials for running the UK the simple analogy will do as far as I am concerned.
 
Dobba said:
Is it that she didn't say the word Nazi? I mean there's a chance she was referring to pre-1933 Germany in her comments, but she's hardly in a rush to clarify that if she did.
Click to expand...

Does she say the quote that was getting her berated on Twitter and in here last night that: 'she felt the same fear her father would have felt when he was fleeing Nazi Germany?'

No. She doesn't. She said it made her think about the treatment of Jews in Germany in the 30s (fine, take issue with that if you like). That it made her feel like they were coming for her (again, take issue if you like), that it scared her and reminded her of her fathers advice to keep a suitcase by the door, and that she thinks that her fear might have been similar to what her father felt when he came to Britain.

Now what Sky have done, and I assume the reason why you have no issue with it, is tie the first half of the quote to the second, but you'd be wrong to do so because her Father didn't flee Nazi Germany to Britain, but Egypt to Britain at the outbreak of the Arab Israeli war in 1948. If you don't do that, and you shouldn't, then the idea that she's comparing being investigated by the Labour party as somehow equivalent to the Holocaust is utter bollocks (which was why she was criticised last night).

Now if we allow for a second that Hodge genuinely believes she made her comments to Corbyn in good faith, that she thinks there's a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour party, and that she is being investigated for the Labour party for calling out anti-semitism, do you not think it's reasonable that she might be scared about the attitude suspending her reveals? A fear based on personal experience and historical anti-semitism?

And hey, you might not allow Hodge such a generous interpretation, but I bet good money that starting a twitter hashtag to abuse her for being vocal about what she sees as a problem is hardly going to convince her that her fears were misplaced is it?
 
Honest John said:
Because I put all the Israelis up the other end.

Corbyn is not a peacemonger, he picks a side!
Click to expand...

The Israeli end would be the more comfortable choice for sure. Don't have to worry nearly as much about being shot by an IDF sniper or being bombed while you watch the football and you can actually leave at the end of the match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.