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

[Oscie]

Not sure it's a particularly convincing line that he's a man who has dedicated his whole life to the Palestinian cause to the point where he regularly gets invited by relevant dignitaries and personnel of interest to attend such events, yet at the same time completely ignorant about everything he just went over there and started laying wreaths without a clue as to what he was doing.

Either he knew, and so there are serious questions that can be raised over his character. Or he had no idea, in which case he comes across as a bit of a buffoon championing causes and getting involved in things that he doesn't really understand. Neither is a ringing endorsement.

 

[RedSky]

This is not the Daily Mail's fault. Ultimately this fiasco is down to Corbyn, his actions that day, and his subsequent bungled attempts to evade responsibility for it. The interview above is as clear a case of a politician caught in a lie as you'll see.

The line now being pushed - that none of the actual Munich operatives are there, therefore Corbyn did nothing wrong - is an insult to our intelligence, as Corbyn himself obviously knows. It's like implying that it would be fine to lay a wreath for, say, bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, since they weren't actually among the 9/11 hijackers.

Them pushing a false headline is their fault.

 

[Oldyella]

Answers aside, his manner is incredibly patronising. No wonder he tends to avoid media when not campaigning

 

[2cents]

Them pushing a false headline is their fault.

The headline refers to the “Munich terrorists” as the “plotters behind 1972 slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes.” That appears to be correct. It may be slightly sneaky to also refer to them as the “Munich terrorists”, but that seems like a distinction that will only matter to those attempting to cover for Corbyn here.

 

[RedSky]

The headline refers to the “Munich terrorists” as the “plotters behind 1972 slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes.” That appears to be correct. It may be slightly sneaky to also refer to them as the “Munich terrorists”, but that seems like a distinction that will only matter to those attempting to cover for Corbyn here.

Not really, they mentioned Munich Terrorists to draw a memory to an event despite those remembered on the plaque not being at the event. It's like saying Osama Bin Laden was part of the 9/11 attacks. It's a cheap and false headline which isn't necessary given the story itself has traction. It's why papers like Daily Mail are trash.

 

[2cents]

Not really, they mentioned Munich Terrorists to draw a memory to an event despite those remembered on the plaque not being at the event. It's like saying Osama Bin Laden was part of the 9/11 attacks. It's a cheap and false headline which isn't necessary given the story itself has traction. It's why papers like Daily Mail are trash.

Ok then, "Munich masterminds" would have been more accurate, agreed.

 

[2cents]

I googled them and got this: https://www.jta.org/1991/01/16/arch...-fatal-blow-with-assassination-of-two-leaders
All the other links were from the past week.
Based on that, and admitting my very poor knowledge of both conflicts, could Khalaf be compared to Gerry Adams?

So I starting doing a bit more digging and found I have a photocopy of about half of Khalaf's memoirs on my hard drive. There's a full section on Black September. Interesting read, but I can see how showing support for the guy is political suicide for someone in Corbyn's (current) position - completely unapologetic about the Munich operation, refers to the perpetrators as the "Munich heroes", claims the operation was a justified act of "revolutionary violence" rather than "terrorism" (he makes a big distinction between them), and so on. Never admits to being formally associated with Black September, but describes all the perpetrators as his friends, knew every detail of the plans, spoke with the survivors in the immediate aftermath. Blames all the deaths on Germany and Israel.

According to a source I'd trust a bit more (Yezid Sayigh - Armed Struggle and the Search for State, really good book on Palestinian politics), Khalaf recruited the eight guys for the operation, and remained involved with Black September as leverage in a power struggle that was playing out with Arafat and the Fatah hierarchy at the time, who didn't like the heat the Black September operations were bringing on them.

On the other hand, in Khalaf's memoirs he expresses some relatively enlightened views about the conflict and the Israelis (e.g. he claims that the Arab leadership in the interwar years should have done a lot more to reach out to the Jews, definitely not the kind of thing you see many Palestinian authors write).

In another book (The Palestinian People by Kimmerling and Migdal) the authors write:

"already in 1968, Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad), the man considered the head ideologue of the progressive stream of Fatah, suggested far-reaching changes in Palestinian goals that implied the need for a dialogue with the Israelis. Instead of simply calling for the creation of a Palestinian state in all of Palestine, he devised the formulation of “a democratic and secular state.” His idea was rejected by the Fatah mainstream and the PLO at the time because of its implied equality for Jews and because of sensitivity to its “secular” dimension, which could provoke confrontation with conservative Islamic elements."​

Going back to the Sayigh book, the general feeling is that Khalaf became more pragmatic in later years, generally kept his distance from Arafat, and had a relationship with Western intelligence, giving them information on the Abu Nidal faction which ultimately assassinated him (and the other two guys with him that day). But I only skimmed through this bit.

So it seems Corbyn, in choosing to double down on his original explanation, may have missed an opportunity to make something of a relevant point about the political evolution of a once notorious terrorist and what it might say about the potential for peace and all that. The political price for doing so may have been very high, but probably not as high as the fallout he's after provoking with his evasiveness.

 

[Silva]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ned-image-emerges-making-muslim-brotherhood2/

throw more shit at the wall somethings bound to stick

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Boris is going to be upset that Corbyn is out Trumping him.

 

[nickm]

The SDLP are not and were not republicans though and took their seats in Westminster unlike Sinn Fein. Any suggestion that there could have been the peace process we enjoy today without the back channel engagement with Sinn Fein and the IRA during the troubles is simply naive.

Also the idea that Corbyn didn't have talks with the SDLP when the SDLP take the Labour whip in parliament and he was involved with the campaign for the inquest into Bloody Sunday is pretty absurd. Here he is with John Hume himself.

I agree gvts need backchannels but Corbyn wasn't a backchannel. He was a supporter of a united Ireland, and could have chosen to support this goal via the SDLP - ie peacefully. But he didn't. Also I'm not sure what that link
shows - it is from 2015 which is years after the event. Seamus Mallon, John Humes deputy, told The Sunday Times: “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.”

 

[Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...victims-memorial-israel-palestinian?CMP=fb_gu

 

[Raulduke]

I agree gvts need backchannels but Corbyn wasn't a backchannel. He was a supporter of a united Ireland, and could have chosen to support this goal via the SDLP - ie peacefully. But he didn't. Also I'm not sure what that link
shows - it is from 2015 which is years after the event. Seamus Mallon, John Humes deputy, told The Sunday Times: “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.”

You said he never talked to the SDLP and that link shows he attended a delegation to Downing Street with John Hume. I'd be very surprised if that indeed was his only interaction with Hume or other members of the SDLP over the years either.

I have a lot of respect for Seamus Mallon but that statement is demonstrably nonsense. Given Adams (despite his denials) and McGuinness were both actually in the IRA and both themselves integral to the success of the peace process.

 

[Camilo]

Very evasive here.

Are you lot serious? The media is a fecking disgrace. You answer one way (the honest way) and they'll paint you all over the front page. "Corbyn lays wreath at terrorist memorial". You answer the other (evasive) way and the media don't have the ammunition. The media ask the questions, and they paint people in whatever way they want. I genuinely can't believe how most people in Britain can't see this.

It's a fabricated scandal, and it's moronic to buy into it. Yes, he probably did end up inadvertently laying a wreath on/near graves/memorials that also happened to be terrorists. In Tunisia. Where of course, one would be expected to question every single movement one is asked to make. "Tell me exactly who I'm laying this particular wreath for" - like anyone would ever ask this?! It's a fecking wreath, clearly and obviously being placed in good faith, for a good cause, which he obviously believes in.

But all people see is what the media tell them - look how evasive he is. Can't even answer the question. No fecking wonder. People could be fed their own bollocks by this lot and they'd still choke it down.

 

[Cheesy]

Are you lot serious? The media is a fecking disgrace. You answer one way (the honest way) and they'll paint you all over the front page. "Corbyn lays wreath at terrorist memorial". You answer the other (evasive) way and the media don't have the ammunition. The media ask the questions, and they paint people in whatever way they want. I genuinely can't believe how most people in Britain can't see this.

It's a fabricated scandal, and it's moronic to buy into it. Yes, he probably did end up inadvertently laying a wreath on/near graves/memorials that also happened to be terrorists. In Tunisia. Where of course, one would be expected to question every single movement one is asked to make. "Tell me exactly who I'm laying this particular wreath for" - like anyone would ever ask this?! It's a fecking wreath, clearly and obviously being placed in good faith, for a good cause, which he obviously believes in.

But all people see is what the media tell them - look how evasive he is. Can't even answer the question. No fecking wonder. People could be fed their own bollocks by this lot and they'd still choke it down.

Then it isn't a fabricated scandal. Imagine the outrage if a Tory MP inadvertently laid a wreath on the grave of a prominent ISIS or Al-Qaeda member? He should naturally be careful in an instance like that, and people are naturally going to be worried that he's associating with the wrong type of people if he's hanging around with groups laying wreaths for terrorists.

I agree the media is biased against him. I agree he's been treated horrendously and chastised for nonsensical stuff. Read my posts further up the thread arguing that. That doesn't mean that every negative story about him is fabricated, or that he's never wrong.

 

[nickm]

You said he never talked to the SDLP and that link shows he attended a delegation to Downing Street with John Hume. I'd be very surprised if that indeed was his only interaction with Hume or other members of the SDLP over the years either.

I have a lot of respect for Seamus Mallon but that statement is demonstrably nonsense. Given Adams (despite his denials) and McGuinness were both actually in the IRA and both themselves integral to the success of the peace process.

Well all right then, let me clarify. I meant that he didn’t talk with the SDLP during the Troubles - during the period when we are interrogating Corbyns one sided choices about who to talk to. And maybe you are surprised that he wasn’t talking to the SDLP, but the deputy leader of the SDLP is on record as confirming it. His point about taking the side of the IRA was presumably about being seen as a sort of honest broker, which you imply he was, via these “back channel chats” but which someone involved in the peace process says he wasn’t. That’s surely the point.

 

[nickm]

Then it isn't a fabricated scandal. Imagine the outrage if a Tory MP inadvertently laid a wreath on the grave of a prominent ISIS or Al-Qaeda member? He should naturally be careful in an instance like that, and people are naturally going to be worried that he's associating with the wrong type of people if he's hanging around with groups laying wreaths for terrorists.

I agree the media is biased against him. I agree he's been treated horrendously and chastised for nonsensical stuff. Read my posts further up the thread arguing that. That doesn't mean that every negative story about him is fabricated, or that he's never wrong.

The problem with corbyn is there is a lot of this kind of thing in his past and he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt because of it. And nor should he. He was a friend of lots of violent revolutionary movements and he is rightfully accountable for that.

 

[Donk87]

Yes, he probably did end up inadvertently laying a wreath on/near graves/memorials that also happened to be terrorists. In Tunisia.

Happens to the best of us. Who hasn't accidentally placed a wreath on a terrorists grave? In Tunisia.

 

[Raulduke]

Well all right then, let me clarify. I meant that he didn’t talk with the SDLP during the Troubles - during the period when we are interrogating Corbyns one sided choices about who to talk to. And maybe you are surprised that he wasn’t talking to the SDLP, but the deputy leader of the SDLP is on record as confirming it. His point about taking the side of the IRA was presumably about being seen as a sort of honest broker, which you imply he was, via these “back channel chats” but which someone involved in the peace process says he wasn’t. That’s surely the point.

Sorry to be pedantic but the Bloody Sunday delegation to Downing street that he's pictured alongside Hume was from early 1994, not long after the Shankill Bombing, Greysteel masacre, before the Loughlinisland massacre and 4 years before the troubles ended. In the article I had linked Gerry MacLochlainn from Sinn Fein states how Corbyn was involved in not just the Bloody Sunday campaign but for the Birmingham 6 and Gilford 4 campaigns. Mallon and Hume are rightly considered among the architects of the peace process but be under no illusion that the Sinn Fein leadership would never have been able to sell decomissioning and support for policing to it's republican base had it not been for the resolution of issues such as bloody sunday, the Birmingham 6, Gilford 4 etc. That Corbyn in any small way helped facilitate the resolution of those issues by being prepared to engage with Sinn Fein when TV channels couldn't even broadcast Gerry Adams voice is something I for one am grateful for.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Sorry to be pedantic but the Bloody Sunday delegation to Downing street that he's pictured alongside Hume was from early 1994, not long after the Shankill Bombing, Greysteel masacre, before the Loughlinisland massacre and 4 years before the troubles ended. In the article I had linked Gerry MacLochlainn from Sinn Fein states how Corbyn was involved in not just the Bloody Sunday campaign but for the Birmingham 6 and Gilford 4 campaigns. Mallon and Hume are rightly considered among the architects of the peace process but be under no illusion that the Sinn Fein leadership would never have been able to sell decomissioning and support for policing to it's republican base had it not been for the resolution of issues such as bloody sunday, the Birmingham 6, Gilford 4 etc. That Corbyn in any small way helped facilitate the resolution of those issues by being prepared to engage with Sinn Fein when TV channels couldn't even broadcast Gerry Adams voice is something I for one am grateful for.

Although that did give us some wonderfully surreal television. So there’s always an upside.

 

[Raulduke]

Although that did give us some wonderfully surreal television. So there’s always an upside.

Indeed, and also provided Jimmy Nesbit with one of his first acting gigs according to local folklore.

 

[nickm]

Sorry to be pedantic but the Bloody Sunday delegation to Downing street that he's pictured alongside Hume was from early 1994, not long after the Shankill Bombing, Greysteel masacre, before the Loughlinisland massacre and 4 years before the troubles ended. In the article I had linked Gerry MacLochlainn from Sinn Fein states how Corbyn was involved in not just the Bloody Sunday campaign but for the Birmingham 6 and Gilford 4 campaigns. Mallon and Hume are rightly considered among the architects of the peace process but be under no illusion that the Sinn Fein leadership would never have been able to sell decomissioning and support for policing to it's republican base had it not been for the resolution of issues such as bloody sunday, the Birmingham 6, Gilford 4 etc. That Corbyn in any small way helped facilitate the resolution of those issues by being prepared to engage with Sinn Fein when TV channels couldn't even broadcast Gerry Adams voice is something I for one am grateful for.

You are right, my error, the photo is contemporaneous. The Guildford 4/Birmingham 6/Bloody Sunday campaigns were extremely important and those were terrible miscarriages of justice. But John Hume was the actual architect of the Downing Street meeting which began the process of that resolution.

Corbyn spoke to Sinn Fein but there’s little to no evidence that it achieved much beyond that, because he was seen as agreeing with them and their goals, which compromised him as an honest broker. John Hume spoke to Sinn Fein too, but he was able to help bring the Troubles to an end, because he did not agree with Sinn Feins methods, even though they shared similar goals, which made him a proper honest broker. That’s the point the SDLP dep leader alluded to himself.

I understand the position you are advocating, but I don’t agree with it.

 

[The Purley King]

I confess I only read this thread for general entertainment factor when he messes something up but what does everyone think about this?
In evening standard today it was reported that he did not declare his trip on the register of members interests as it was apparently below the £660 threshold (which the Tunisian government paid). However he stayed in the 5* Le Palace hotel which now costs £1k per night.
Have prices really gone up that much? Could he have got flights, food, accommodation for £660?

 

[Shamwow]

I confess I only read this thread for general entertainment factor when he messes something up but what does everyone think about this?
In evening standard today it was reported that he did not declare his trip on the register of members interests as it was apparently below the £660 threshold (which the Tunisian government paid). However he stayed in the 5* Le Palace hotel which now costs £1k per night.
Have prices really gone up that much? Could he have got flights, food, accommodation for £660?

You can go on booking.com right now and get a room for £110

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Oscie]

Why are people providing these polls as some kind of evidence things are going well. Worst, most divided govt in post-war history, about to drive the whole country off the cliff most people now don't want to drive over. 2 point polling lead in mid-term cited as "good news" for the opposition. It's a fecking joke.

Anyone who is a cheerleader of Corbyn should be absolutely fecking embarrassed by a one point lead here, two point lead there. Not promote them like it's anything at all to be proud of. Like boasting about winning the Sexist Paedophile award. Christ almighty.

But it's the new Corbyn normal.

- Finishing 2nd is the new 'winning'
- Failing to make significant gains in local elections is what oppositions now do
- Being marred in antisemtism and struggling to get message across is 'doing well'
- Within margin of error lead vs catastrophic govt in mid-term polling is considered going great guns.


All bullshit aside people would do well to reflect just how much effort has been put into normalising the above to the point where people genuinely see all of that as a positive. For me it's one of the only real achievements of his leadership, that expectation has been kicked so hard in the balls they now find some success in convincing people it's great news only one bollock is ruptured.

 

[The Purley King]

You can go on booking.com right now and get a room for £110

Excellent! Are the flights and the day trip to the graves and my wreath in the price too?

 

[Shamwow]

Excellent! Are the flights and the day trip to the graves and my wreath in the price too?

You can get flights for about £100 too. Why don't you use your own brain mate instead of beleiving everything you read in tabloids

 

[Barca84]

I confess I only read this thread for general entertainment factor when he messes something up but what does everyone think about this?
In evening standard today it was reported that he did not declare his trip on the register of members interests as it was apparently below the £660 threshold (which the Tunisian government paid). However he stayed in the 5* Le Palace hotel which now costs £1k per night.
Have prices really gone up that much? Could he have got flights, food, accommodation for £660?

That would be the Evening Standard edited by one George Osborne right?

 

[Nuts]

I happened to read the Standard after work yesterday - the attacks on Corbyn were from all angles, on most pages. Their other big scoop was that he’s ‘anti-festivals’ as they’d found a letter from him expressing concern that the Wireless Festival was disturbing his constituents. Osborne had clearly rubbed his hands with glee at the opportunity to attack Corbyn’s youth credentials...

Defenders of Corbyn are now being told they're too defensive - but when you look at the smears that come out every day it would be hard not to be.

Has everyone seen the Daily Telegraph article from yesterday reporting that they had a photo of Corbyn making the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘terrorist salute’?

Well, dig a little deeper and you find it’s actually a widely used gesture adopted by Egyptian protestors opposing the Sisi regime and Rabat massacre and there are photos of the Nobel Peace prize winning Malala Yousafzai using it.

The trouble is that most people will just read the Telegraph headline and not look beyond it...

There will be posters here who’ll say he shouldn’t have been mixed up in this stuff anyway. I disagree - Corbyn is a public servant who has used his position to highlight the suffering of others at home and abroad. Isn’t that what public servants should do?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I happened to read the Standard after work yesterday - the attacks on Corbyn were from all angles, on most pages. Their other big scoop was that he’s ‘anti-festivals’ as they’d found a letter from him expressing concern that the Wireless Festival was disturbing his constituents. Osborne had clearly rubbed his hands with glee at the opportunity to attack Corbyn’s youth credentials...

Defenders of Corbyn are now being told they're too defensive - but when you look at the smears that come out every day it would be hard not to be.

Has everyone seen the Daily Telegraph article from yesterday reporting that they had a photo of Corbyn making the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘terrorist salute’?

Well, dig a little deeper and you find it’s actually a widely used gesture adopted by Egyptian protestors opposing the Sisi regime and Rabat massacre and there are photos of the Nobel Peace prize winning Malala Yousafzai using it.

The trouble is that most people will just read the Telegraph headline and not look beyond it...

There will be posters here who’ll say he shouldn’t have been mixed up in this stuff anyway. I disagree - Corbyn is a public servant who has used his position to highlight the suffering of others at home and abroad. Isn’t that what public servants should do?

Dude. If you’re a believer in Corbyn why are you reading the Standard and the Telegraph? You’re only going to get wound up. Of course they’re going to slag off the leader of the Labour party. That’s what they do.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Why are people providing these polls as some kind of evidence things are going well. Worst, most divided govt in post-war history, about to drive the whole country off the cliff most people now don't want to drive over. 2 point polling lead in mid-term cited as "good news" for the opposition. It's a fecking joke.

Anyone who is a cheerleader of Corbyn should be absolutely fecking embarrassed by a one point lead here, two point lead there. Not promote them like it's anything at all to be proud of. Like boasting about winning the Sexist Paedophile award. Christ almighty.

But it's the new Corbyn normal.

- Finishing 2nd is the new 'winning'
- Failing to make significant gains in local elections is what oppositions now do
- Being marred in antisemtism and struggling to get message across is 'doing well'
- Within margin of error lead vs catastrophic govt in mid-term polling is considered going great guns.


All bullshit aside people would do well to reflect just how much effort has been put into normalising the above to the point where people genuinely see all of that as a positive. For me it's one of the only real achievements of his leadership, that expectation has been kicked so hard in the balls they now find some success in convincing people it's great news only one bollock is ruptured.

I know you’re tarred as anti-Corbynite numero uno so the faithful will ignore your post but you’re hitting the nail on the head. What does Theresa May need to do, exactly, for the Labour party to finally start polling like an opposition who is ready to oust the government? Kick some orphans to death on the front steps of Number 10?

 

[balaks]

I know you’re tarred as anti-Corbynite numero uno so the faithful will ignore your post but you’re hitting the nail on the head. What does Theresa May need to do, exactly, for the Labour party to finally start polling like an opposition who is ready to oust the government? Kick some orphans to death on the front steps of Number 10?

May is the weakest PM of the weakest government in living memory and is busy making an absolute horlicks of Brexit. If Corbyn is unable to build good numbers in a situation such as this then he is performing even worse than May. It is a national scandal that there is not a capable opposition at a time when it is needed the most. Corbyn is a total disaster for the country just as much as May is.

 

[Nuts]

I know you’re tarred as anti-Corbynite numero uno so the faithful will ignore your post but you’re hitting the nail on the head. What does Theresa May need to do, exactly, for the Labour party to finally start polling like an opposition who is ready to oust the government? Kick some orphans to death on the front steps of Number 10?

But imagine if Corbyn had a slightly fairer press (ie: anywhere short of the daily lynching he’s getting from all angles) and had all his MPs united behind him.

That’s what is so difficult to understand - that there are Labour MPs apparently so idealogically opposed to Corbyn that they’d rather sabotage him and keep the Tories in.

There’s no question, for me, that without the smear campaign and disloyal Labour MPs he’d be ahead.

 

[balaks]

But imagine if Corbyn had a slightly fairer press (ie: anywhere short of the daily lynching he’s getting from all angles) and had all his MPs united behind him.

That’s what is so difficult to understand - that there are Labour MPs apparently so idealogically opposed to Corbyn that they’d rather sabotage him and keep the Tories in.

There’s no question, for me, that without the smear campaign and disloyal Labour MPs he’d be ahead.

Another way to put it would be if Corbyn's media team were more skilled at managing the press (and Corbyn himself was not totally incompetant and putting himself in situations that are an easy hit against him) and Corbyn was strong enough to gain the support of all his MP's then he would be in a much better place.

 

[Kaos]

But imagine if Corbyn had a slightly fairer press (ie: anywhere short of the daily lynching he’s getting from all angles) and had all his MPs united behind him.

That’s what is so difficult to understand - that there are Labour MPs apparently so idealogically opposed to Corbyn that they’d rather sabotage him and keep the Tories in.

There’s no question, for me, that without the smear campaign and disloyal Labour MPs he’d be ahead.

Hit the nail on the head.

I’ve never seen the media so viciously attack the leader of the opposition - from the onset of him being elected leader he’s been vehemently hounded, calling him all sorts from terrorist sympathiser, Leninist, anti-Semite, an existential threat etc. Couple that to the fact you have a considerable core of his party trying to undermine him then you’d have to say he’s done well to garner a two point lead.

 

[NinjaFletch]

But imagine if Corbyn had a slightly fairer press (ie: anywhere short of the daily lynching he’s getting from all angles) and had all his MPs united behind him.

That’s what is so difficult to understand - that there are Labour MPs apparently so idealogically opposed to Corbyn that they’d rather sabotage him and keep the Tories in.

There’s no question, for me, that without the smear campaign and disloyal Labour MPs he’d be ahead.

He doesn't though, does he? And it's arguable that any left-wing Labour leader is going to.

So what are your options here? Blindly put your faith in the idea that these 'lynchings' are all entirely without basis and dismiss them out of hand (despite the fact that the most recent one, and several of the other ones, have had Corbyn bang to rights), or perhaps champion a candidate that shares Corbyn's values without the ridiculous amount of baggage which comes with Corbyn? I'm not at all convinced that they're having to dig very hard at all to find this dirt.

Shouting 'wah, wah, wah the press aren't being fair' doesn't make the fact that there's an awful lot that Corbyn has said, done, and been involved in, that the public have the right to know about and should have the chance to form their opinions on.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Happens to the best of us. Who hasn't accidentally placed a wreath on a terrorists grave? In Tunisia.

Get your head out of your ass. He laid a wreath on a grave.

I'll go as far as saying that if any person asked me to lay a wreath at a grave, I would.

If it turned out to be the rapist child molester murderer of 100 babies, I'd still feel that I acted authentically. I would not feel bad in any way, shape or form.

The media is pushing a saleable narrative. He laid a fcuking wreath.

People are punishing a guy for not being media savvy. Fcuk. That. Shit. There's a racist, misogynist that calls human beings dogs, with his finger on the button of a nuke right now. I'm not drawing a false equivalence.

I don't want my politicians to be media savvy. I want the media to be sensible, respectable, beyond reproach and not slaves to the bottom line.

Corbyn is a bit of a limp vessel. But he deserves less shit that the joke of a media we put up with.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I'll go as far as saying that if any person asked me to lay a wreath at a grave, I would.

If it turned out to be the rapist child molester murderer of 100 babies, I'd still feel that I acted authentically. I would not feel bad in any way, shape or form.

Say what?

 

[balaks]

He doesn't though, does he? And it's arguable that any left-wing Labour leader is going to.

So what are your options here? Blindly put your faith in the idea that these 'lynchings' are all entirely without basis and dismiss them out of hand (despite the fact that the most recent one, and several of the other ones, have had Corbyn bang to rights), or perhaps champion a candidate that shares Corbyn's values without the ridiculous amount of baggage which comes with Corbyn? I'm not at all convinced that they're having to dig very hard at all to find this dirt.

Shouting 'wah, wah, wah the press aren't being fair' doesn't make the fact that there's an awful lot that Corbyn has said, done, and been involved in, that the public have the right to know about and should have the chance to form their opinions on.

Absolutely right. Corbyn has a dubious past at best and it is coming back to bite him on the arse - that isn't the press hounding him - that is Corbyn being chummy with terrorists (some of which at the time were actively trying to kill British people).

Labour need to keep some of his policies and keep to the left as I think there is an opportunity for them there (and as a left-leaning guy I would like to see some of his ideas actually become reality) but they need to get rid of Corbyn and replace him with somebody who who is sympathetic to many of the ideas he is trying to push but without all the baggage as you said which is holding them back. We need Labour to be strong right now to hold the Government to account. What we do not need is Corbyn.

 

[Shamwow]

Remember the 6 months+ after May became leader and the media basically treated her as the second coming of Christ who would marry Tory competence with more left wing values?