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

What is wrong with the woman!

Some people need to get a grip on themselves and realise than religion is just a personal belief system. It's not real, it's not fact and one religion is no better or worse than another. Jews have as much right as Muslims to be in this world and their religion is just as important.

Not defending the actions and her "defence" is laughable if it's taken her until now to delete those tweets but it's worth noting that she was 15-16 at the time of the tweets judging by the date-stamps.
 
Would she be kicked out of Warwick for that?

It's honestly hilarious that she was the SU Ethnic Minorities Officer. :lol: Keeps my belief that anyone who engages in student politics is a tosser.
 
Not defending the actions and her "defence" is laughable if it's taken her until now to delete those tweets but it's worth noting that she was 15-16 at the time of the tweets judging by the date-stamps.
Fine, but if she had half a brain, particularly given her role, she would've deleted those posts yonks ago. Have her views really changed that much in 3-4 years, who knows?
Agreed that student politics breeds total tossers.
 
Not sure who is being more despicable over the Whittingale stuff- the beeb or Labour hypocrites. Do they really believe he runs his department in an odd autocratic bubble?
 
Not sure who is being more despicable over the Whittingale stuff- the beeb or Labour hypocrites. Do they really believe he runs his department in an odd autocratic bubble?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ittingdale-story-until-10-days-ago-says-no-10

You can add the Guardian and the Sunday People (or Mirror group) to that list. Indeed the entirety of established media would appear to have shown themselves up on this one.

Since when did promotion to the Cabinet warrant a play-by-play of one's sexual activities or relationships? To say nothing of the People's gutter dwelling.
 
Last edited:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ittingdale-story-until-10-days-ago-says-no-10

You can add the Guardian and the Sunday People (or Mirror group) to that list. Indeed the entirety of established media would appear to have shown themselves up on this one.

Since when did promotion to the Cabinet warrant a play-by-play of one's sexual activities or relationships? To say nothing of the People's gutter dwelling.
When Greenslade is condemning it you know it is the dark side of the left. It's actually quite a sad story. I can't get too cosy in the high horse's saddle, given the strong suspicion is that the right would have done the same in these circumstances. But it irks me somewhat that people don't seem to recognise that the Mirror's virulent bile is as bad as the Mail's. The People was always the pits. Feck knows how it has survived.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ittingdale-story-until-10-days-ago-says-no-10

You can add the Guardian and the Sunday People (or Mirror group) to that list. Indeed the entirety of established media would appear to have shown themselves up on this one.

Since when did promotion to the Cabinet warrant a play-by-play of one's sexual activities or relationships? To say nothing of the People's gutter dwelling.

Is it not a conflict of interests when four newspapers decline to run the story in him whilst he is handling Leveson? I think that is the political issue here.
 
Is it not a conflict of interests when four newspapers decline to run the story in him whilst he is handling Leveson? I think that is the political issue here.

Do we have any reason to suppose that Whittingdale ha altered policy as a result? The original story could at best be described as fodder for the gossips, and was unlikely to be harmful to his career. Maybe he was a tad embarrassed, yet do we know that cared enough to be intimidated by it?

As for my earlier reply, that was a response to the inferences expressed in the Guardian article. But like Jippy said, it's not a right or left thing, for indeed it seems that the Independent and Daily Mail found some common ground here.
 
Do we have any reason to suppose that Whittingdale ha altered policy as a result? The original story could at best be described as fodder for the gossips, and was unlikely to be harmful to his career. Maybe he was a tad embarrassed, yet do we know that cared enough to be intimidated by it?

As for my earlier reply, that was a response to the inferences expressed in the Guardian article. But like Jippy said, it's not a right or left thing, for indeed it seems that the Independent and Daily Mail found some common ground here.

Should we be comfortable risking it when there's a chance that it has had some sort of effect on policy. Or that they are leaving him alone because he's already on their side, which is just as bad in my book.

The whole thing seems really iffy to me, you can say "since when did someone's promotion to the cabinet warrant a play by play of their sex life" but (putting the thread back on topic) it didn't stop the papers telling us that Corbyn and Abbott may have had a fling 30 odd years ago.

Or how about this one: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1665544.ece

"Cor! Corbyn Jr is Tinder lothario"


I'm sure the papers just got a sudden strike of conscience though!
 
Should we be comfortable risking it when there's a chance that it has had some sort of effect on policy. Or that they are leaving him alone because he's already on their side, which is just as bad in my book.

The whole thing seems really iffy to me, you can say "since when did someone's promotion to the cabinet warrant a play by play of their sex life" but (putting the thread back on topic) it didn't stop the papers telling us that Corbyn and Abbott may have had a fling 30 odd years ago.

Or how about this one: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1665544.ece

"Cor! Corbyn Jr is Tinder lothario"


I'm sure the papers just got a sudden strike of conscience though!
Don't you think someone might query it if he suddenly changed tack on press regulation?

The Corbyn's son story is crap.
 
Don't you think someone might query it if he suddenly changed tack on press regulation?

The Corbyn's son story is crap.

It's not so much him changing tack, it's more then leaving him alone because he's already on their side. It's a slippery slope and all that.
 
Thought he did a good job addressing his previous euroscepticism today whilst also fully backing a Remain vote.
 
It's not so much him changing tack, it's more then leaving him alone because he's already on their side. It's a slippery slope and all that.
Do find it hard to imagine papers colluding to not run the story.
 
It's not so much him changing tack, it's more then leaving him alone because he's already on their side. It's a slippery slope and all that.

Are you not in turn creating a slippery slope of your own? All the media need do is hold back the details of an entirely private story for a few months, and wham, a minister must resign from their post.


Thought he did a good job addressing his previous euroscepticism today whilst also fully backing a Remain vote.

He is either a naive fool, or sold out to the lobbyists in Brussels; the latter does at least put him on side with the PLP i suppose.
 
Wow... Less popular than a pig loving tax dodger who is on the wrong side of the European debate for most of his party supporters.
I can't help but think a credible leader right now and labour would have the conservatives in a lot of trouble

Preference for Prime Minister doesn't necessarily equate to popularity in general. Corbyn's got to work on his sort of Prime Ministerial image in general...people generally don't mind him as a person, but still struggle to see him as any sort of statesman, probably because Cameron and others insist on silly arguments like how he dresses or doesn't belt out to the national anthem every time he's within walking distance of a camera.

He's certainly making progress, and is actually doing quite well in the polls now...which is something a lot of people said could never happen. If there's any time for his party to back him, then it's now. I struggle to see anyone else within the Labour party who'd be doing a better in the polls than Labour generally are right now.
 
He is either a naive fool, or sold out to the lobbyists in Brussels; the latter does at least put him on side with the PLP i suppose.
Or just thinks that whilst he's had problems with the EU in the past, the nasty implications of leaving would make lives worse for people in the UK.
 
Or just thinks that whilst he's had problems with the EU in the past, the nasty implications of leaving would make lives worse for people in the UK.

Which nasty implications would those be precisely? The man professes to care about the poor of this country and the plight of migrants, yet he betrays both groups with his endorsement of previous immigration policy and the EU at this time. Corbyn could plant a banner in the turf for his 'new politics' and separate Labour from the Government; instead, he'll be campaigning alongside the political establishment.
 
Are you not in turn creating a slippery slope of your own? All the media need do is hold back the details of an entirely private story for a few months, and wham, a minister must resign from their post.

Yeah maybe. It's complicated ain't it?
 
Do we have any reason to suppose that Whittingdale ha altered policy as a result? The original story could at best be described as fodder for the gossips, and was unlikely to be harmful to his career. Maybe he was a tad embarrassed, yet do we know that cared enough to be intimidated by it?

As for my earlier reply, that was a response to the inferences expressed in the Guardian article. But like Jippy said, it's not a right or left thing, for indeed it seems that the Independent and Daily Mail found some common ground here.

Yes, there is more to it,

https://www.byline.com/project/48/article/966

That is direct from the horses mouth, one of the journalists who was investigating Whittingdale.
 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...es-snub-McDonalds-from-Labour-conference.html

VEGGIE Jeremy Corbyn and his Leftie pals have been blasted as “snobs” after McDonald’s was banned from the Labour conference.

The fast food giant wanted a display stand backing British farm produce — and give the hard-up party £30,000.

But the right-on leadership — which has seen several big-money donors pull out since Mr Corbyn took over — told the chain it was not welcome.

How on earth does this qualify as journalism? (there's no evidence his being veg has anything to do with his decision)

Also, <3 Corbyn.
 
I am sure i read somewhere recently that McDonald's were introducing an opt-out for zero hour contracts.
 
Is that another dead cat from Cameron?

Corbyn was all over him on forced academies so he just threw out an offensive and indefensible comment about Sadiq Kahn at the end.
 
Is that another dead cat from Cameron?

Corbyn was all over him on forced academies so he just threw out an offensive and indefensible comment about Sadiq Kahn at the end.
No, I think he was just plain shite today. Comment about Khan all the more laughable as the cleric's apparently shared a platform with Tory ministers as well. Khan's gonna beat Goldsmith by a lot.
 
Is that another dead cat from Cameron?

Corbyn was all over him on forced academies so he just threw out an offensive and indefensible comment about Sadiq Kahn at the end.

Yeah I'd say it was a planned diversion. It's a losing issue for the Tories as they have no real answers, now the headlines will be focused on Khan.

They're annoyingly good at playing the media.
 
Considering he somewhat randomly hosted the UK kebab awards last month I think we can safely say it doesn't.

The truth never stopped the Sun before though.
:nervous:Oops that was meant to be a green smiley. The UK kebab awards sounds a glamorous affair.
 
Yeah I'd say it was a planned diversion. It's a losing issue for the Tories as they have no real answers, now the headlines will be focused on Khan.

They're annoyingly good at playing the media.

The BBC headline on PMQs:

"PM vows to 'finish the job' on academies"
 
The academies proposals won't pass (at least i hope not), there are just too many Government rebels when combined with the opposition parties.
 


So not only was he campaigning for the Tory, it was also against Khan :lol: Delicious.
 
^ Even i knew about these alleged links, the PM or rather his speech writer can''t have been oblivious of the fact.

Goldsmith is up against the cyclical nature of the mayoralty as much as he is Khan, for no party has held office longer than two terms.
 
The BBC headline on PMQs:

"PM vows to 'finish the job' on academies"

The BBC don't discuss controversies though. They report the government's leading line, will add in some opposing quotes (for "balance") much further down the article and then finish it by giving you the government's response to said criticism.

I don't even need to look at that article to tell you that's what it'll be. I mean who doesn't think 'finishing the job' is a good thing huh?
 
Bradford MP Naz Shah quits as McDonnell's PPS after antisemitic posts

The Bradford MP Naz Shah has stepped down as the parliamentary private secretary to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, over antisemitic Facebook posts.

In a series of social media posts, Shah said Israel should “relocate to the US” and posted an article that likened Zionism to al-Qaida.

Shah has since apologised, saying: “I deeply regret the hurt I have caused.” It emerged later that she had stepped down as PPS to McDonnell.

Shah, who was elected MP for Bradford West last May, shared a picture of Israel’s outline superimposed on to a map of the US under the headline “Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States”, with the comment “problem solved”.

In the post shared in 2014 – nine months before Shah became an MP – it went on to say that Americans would “welcome Israelis with open arms” and that the relocation would bring peace to the Middle East by ending “foreign interference”.

The post suggested the US had “plenty of land” to accommodate Israel as a 51st state, allowing Palestinians to “get their life and their land back”.

Alongside the post, Shah added a smiley-face emoji and suggested she would lobby the prime minister to adopt the plan.

It added that Israeli people would be welcome and safe in the US, while the “transportation cost” would be less than three years’ worth of Washington’s support for Israeli defence spending.

Shah added a note suggesting the plan might “save them some pocket money”.

After the posting was highlighted by the Guido Fawkes website, Shah released a statement in which she said: “This post from two years ago was made before I was an MP, does not reflect my views and I apologise for any offence it has caused.”

Shah is a member of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the rise of antisemitism.

Full article :: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ohn-mcdonnells-pps-antisemitic-facebook-posts
 
Shame, I like it how she slapped Galloway in the election last year but that antisemitic stuff is pretty inexcusable, no matter how you look at it.
But what does that have to do with Corbyn?