As the Telegraph reporters were at the least doubtful about whether he was general secretary of the board or only a member, wouldn't journalistic ethics normally require them to contact him to clarify that? Especially as they suggested this point might be the most controversial raised by their article?
They will do whatever they can get away with to help the Tory campaign. They and many other Tories were foaming at the mouth with joy at the thought of smashing the Labour party forever, and now they're cacking their knickers and foaming out of their mouths at the same time, emitting words such as "Marxist", "Trotskyist", "terrorist", "anti-British", "security risk" as their hate monitors go into overload.
Why did they call the election again? Oh yes, because they'll increase they're majority, because they're "so good at Brexit". Well at least they themselves think so. Er, what was the issue again? "I don't care if my son is £30000 in debt when he leaves university, just so long as the posh boys show Brussels what's what in the game of Brexit". I mean, seriously, who on earth thinks like that?
Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?
No. Nor was he responsible editorially for any articles that said that. It was simply not his position.
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
CCHQ are definitely seeking to paint him as bad a light as possible. I have no doubt the Telegraph are happy to oblige.
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
Had a chat with my parents and sister about the general election this afternoon. My sister voted Green last time but will vote Tory this time as she 'can't stand Corbyn.' My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a 'genuine, nice man but he does not live in the real world.' My father said he would emigrate to the US if Corbyn won, though I warned him that if Corbyn won it was not impossible Sanders could win in 2020 either
Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.
What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.
Bull shit I can hardly name a Corbyn supporter on here .Southam for example derides him everyday.
Quite right. There are far more fawning May supporters on here. Or there were, but Nick Timothy's antics and May's air of mediocrity have possibly tested even that devotion to destruction, which is saying quite a lot.
Had a chat with my parents and sister about the general election this afternoon. My sister voted Green last time but will vote Tory this time as she 'can't stand Corbyn.' My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a 'genuine, nice man but he does not live in the real world.' My father said he would emigrate to the US if Corbyn won, though I warned him that if Corbyn won it was not impossible Sanders could win in 2020 either
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.
She's the best candidate by miles. I can't think of anyone close. She personally turned around the SCONES. She's a proven winner.
I'm With You: Davidson for '22.
Davidson has got a 15% swing from the SNP with Comres yesterday and a 12.5% swing from the SNP with Yougov in Scotland, May by contrast has got a 2.5% swing from Labour with Comres UK wide and virtually no swing at all with Yougov. Albeit May starts from a much higher base
Had a chat with my parents and sister about the general election this afternoon. My sister voted Green last time but will vote Tory this time as she 'can't stand Corbyn.' My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a 'genuine, nice man but he does not live in the real world.' My father said he would emigrate to the US if Corbyn won, though I warned him that if Corbyn won it was not impossible Sanders could win in 2020 either
Try Canada.
I doubt he would be a great fan of Trudeau either but he would prefer him to Corbyn and Sanders certainly, he also quite likes France and speaks French quite well having lived there in a gap year and I expect he could tolerate Macron. He has a cousin in Australia too but that is probably too far away
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.
What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.
Bull shit I can hardly name a Corbyn supporter on here .Southam for example derides him everyday.
Quite right. There are far more fawning May supporters on here. Or there were, but Nick Timothy's antics and May's air of mediocrity have possibly tested even that devotion to destruction, which is saying quite a lot.
Mortimer and Big G North Wales are the only true May believers, there are a fair number of Labour supporters here but not many Corbynistas though I think Sunil voted for him in 2015
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
Does anything in that indicate support for terrorism?
Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?
No. Nor was he responsible editorially for any articles that said that. It was simply not his position.
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
CCHQ are definitely seeking to paint him as bad a light as possible. I have no doubt the Telegraph are happy to oblige.
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
I know you are a young lad and we live in a different world today.However a previous Prime Minister believed there was a conspiracy against him, Harold Wilson .The 1970s in Britain and the dirty war in Ireland should at least make you question your assumptions of what goes on out of public view.
Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?
No. Nor was he responsible editorially for any articles that said that. It was simply not his position.
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
CCHQ are definitely seeking to paint him as bad a light as possible. I have no doubt the Telegraph are happy to oblige.
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
Doesn't your intellectual dignity protest when your jerking knee takes over? You're not sorry, I didn't make the deduction you suggest I did, and you sound like a boring sod bereft of any clue about how "conspiracy" ideas work.
Andrew Parker could slap the Telegraph's wrist for taking his organisation's name in vain when it smears the Labour leader to help the Tory campaign. He doesn't, though. Maybe he's too busy achieving this month's "plot-thwarting" target?
Meanwhile, did MI5 have a file on Conrad Black, former controller of Hollinger International, publisher of the Daily Telegraph? I should bloody well hope they did.
Before Black got prosecuted, his theft of so many millions would have made him a ripe target for blackmail by foreign intelligence agencies.
As for the Barclay brothers, they are so "reclusive".
Board members of the Telegraph Media Group.
Murdoch MacLennan David King Aidan Barclay Viscount Cranborne Martin Jacomb Henry Keswick John Leonard P. Buckley Peter Rupert Michael Seal Philip Peters Rigel Mowatt Howard Barclay
Henry Keswick - Eton, Trinity College Cambridge, Scots Guards, National Trust, National Portrait Gallery...former owner of the Spectator, and oh, what's this? Chairman of Jardine Matheson Holdings, one of the big powers in Chinese Hong Kong since the dark days of the 19th century opiate trade, now happily incorporated in Bermuda, population less than 70,000.
***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY Back the GE turnout to be <63% with Wm. Hill at odds of 6/5 (2.2 decimal)
Invest the same amount, backing the GE turnout to be >63% with betway at the same odds of 6/5 (2.2).
Whichever bet wins, your return is therefore 20% more than your combined stake money ..... not bad over a period of just 12 days and definitely beats working for a living!
But having wasted some time today looking into two other stories about how "disgusting" Jeremy Corbyn is, which turned out not to be what they seemed, I can't help wondering whether that is entirely accurate and fair. Are those words "show solidarity ..." a quotation from Corbyn, as you seem to imply? I don't think they are. If they aren't, how do you know why he was there or what he was trying to do? Did Corbyn call it a "show trial"? I looked at an online report in the Times, and although that phrase was in quotation marks, it was very difficult to tell where it came from. Not from Corbyn, I suspect.
In response to this story, Corbyn's spokesperson said he was lobbying for a fair trial. Some people may think the idea that alleged terrorists wouldn't get a fair trial is ridiculous and "disgusting". But is it really, viewed in the context of the serious miscarriages of justice that are known to have taken place?
I don't understand why, if Corbyn really expressed clear support for terrorism in his speeches, those speeches can't just be quoted, and then there would be no question about it.
Try this quiz. Who said these various quotes, Jeremy Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, or ISIS?
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
Had a chat with my parents and sister about the general election this afternoon. My sister voted Green last time but will vote Tory this time as she 'can't stand Corbyn.' My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a 'genuine, nice man but he does not live in the real world.' My father said he would emigrate to the US if Corbyn won, though I warned him that if Corbyn won it was not impossible Sanders could win in 2020 either
Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.
What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.
Bull shit I can hardly name a Corbyn supporter on here .Southam for example derides him everyday.
Quite right. There are far more fawning May supporters on here. Or there were, but Nick Timothy's antics and May's air of mediocrity have possibly tested even that devotion to destruction, which is saying quite a lot.
Really? Name one?
The default position of any party is that we are the bestest party, therefore our Leader is bestest choice for PM. I haven't seen much sign anywhere of anyone saying more than that (though plenty have said less than that, as in I wish we still had Dave).
Indeed the only two departures from that rule I can remember were Gordon, where the Lab line was pretty much "OK so he's crap; deal with it" and Jez, where the majority think he is crap and a minority that he is The One.
Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?
No. Nor was he responsible editorially for any articles that said that. It was simply not his position.
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
CCHQ are definitely seeking to paint him as bad a light as possible. I have no doubt the Telegraph are happy to oblige.
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
I know you are a young lad and we live in a different world today.However a previous Prime Minister believed there was a conspiracy against him, Harold Wilson .The 1970s in Britain and the dirty war in Ireland should at least make you question your assumptions of what goes on out of public view.
Well, taking aside that rather condescending dismissal, which makes glaring assumptions about what I believe without evidence, by your own words 'we live in a different world today'.
I believe plenty goes on out of public view, thank you very much. But If they are involved, there would be far more effective ways to do it than inventing smears. Not least because CCHQ and enthusiastic amateurs would do that on their own without needing help from MI5. They don't need to be involved with something like that. Unnecessary and risky, with little reward given it would happen anyway. Why would they do it then?
Do you believe MI5 are interfering in the election, as Cyan does?
It is a far cry from 'questioning assumptions' to accusing MI5 of directly interfering in an election - it is a classic of conspiracy theorists to assume anyone who does not buy into their claims is an ignorant sheep who never questions things, and I am deeply saddened you have implied that is the case because I am too young to know any better. Poor kle4, he never questions authority, he doesn't know what the big bad government gets up to, he just takes everything the big bad government says at face value.
How offensive. No you didn't use the exact words above, but that is the implication by suggesting my age means I don't question things, that I merely accept what is presented before me.
Had a chat with my parents and sister about the general election this afternoon. My sister voted Green last time but will vote Tory this time as she 'can't stand Corbyn.' My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a 'genuine, nice man but he does not live in the real world.' My father said he would emigrate to the US if Corbyn won, though I warned him that if Corbyn won it was not impossible Sanders could win in 2020 either
Singapore? Orban's Hungary?
I know he did some work in Malaysia although I don't think he has been to Singapore but as he is retired he will probably want a bit more greenery, if Alistair Meeks can live in Hungary it can't be that bad
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
Firstly, that excuse getting a bit boring. Corbyns 'context' is just his smokescreen and a precursor to saying we should just let them get away with it. Secondly, his very premise is warped. When ISIS invaded Iraq, and began a mass terror campaign to subjugate it by force, Iraq was a democracy with elected leaders and a parliament. People braved great personal danger to go out and vote. I'd argue its a better democracy than Russia which has held massively corrupt so called elections to prop up Putin.
As fast as he seeks to rewrite the history of his own past terrorist associations he is quickly twisting the facts of modern events. Its a pretty poor show that 'we have sunk to a depth where a restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men' (George Orwell) Corbyn is a disgusting personality.
But having wasted some time today looking into two other stories about how "disgusting" Jeremy Corbyn is, which turned out not to be what they seemed, I can't help wondering whether that is entirely accurate and fair. Are those words "show solidarity ..." a quotation from Corbyn, as you seem to imply? I don't think they are. If they aren't, how do you know why he was there or what he was trying to do? Did Corbyn call it a "show trial"? I looked at an online report in the Times, and although that phrase was in quotation marks, it was very difficult to tell where it came from. Not from Corbyn, I suspect.
In response to this story, Corbyn's spokesperson said he was lobbying for a fair trial. Some people may think the idea that alleged terrorists wouldn't get a fair trial is ridiculous and "disgusting". But is it really, viewed in the context of the serious miscarriages of justice that are known to have taken place?
I don't understand why, if Corbyn really expressed clear support for terrorism in his speeches, those speeches can't just be quoted, and then there would be no question about it.
Try this quiz. Who said these various quotes, Jeremy Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, or ISIS?
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
Perhaps we can have a thread header on what proportion of voters think that MI5 interferes in our elections, apparently it is a surprisingly broad grouping. If you don't think they are, you never question your assumptions, we have been told.
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
That seems improbable - if that was so surely the party would take a hit during a campaign which has focused on the leadership, when it has instead improved its position.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Perhaps we can have a thread header on what proportion of voters think that MI5 interferes in our elections, apparently it is a surprisingly broad grouping. If you don't think they are, you never question your assumptions, we have been told.
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
That seems improbable - if that was so surely the party would take a hit during a campaign which has focused on the leadership, when it has instead improved its position.
Seems fair to point out that Wilson was as mad as a meat-axe by the time he got round to detecting conspiracies against him.
Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?
No. Nor was he responsible editorially for any articles that said that. It was simply not his position.
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
CCHQ are definitely seeking to paint him as bad a light as possible. I have no doubt the Telegraph are happy to oblige.
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
I know you are a young lad and we live in a different world today.However a previous Prime Minister believed there was a conspiracy against him, Harold Wilson .The 1970s in Britain and the dirty war in Ireland should at least make you question your assumptions of what goes on out of public view.
Well, taking aside that rather condescending dismissal, which makes glaring assumptions about what I believe without evidence, by your own words 'we live in a different world today'.
I believe plenty goes on out of public view, thank you very much. But If they are involved, there would be far more effective ways to do it than inventing smears. Not least because CCHQ and enthusiastic amateur would do that on their own without needing help from MI5. They don't need to be involved with something like that.
Do you believe MI5 are interfering in the election, as Cyan does?
It is a far cry from 'questioning assumptions' to accusing MI5 of directly interfering in an election - it is a classic of conspiracy theorists to assume anyone who does not buy into their claims is an ignorant sheep who never questions things, and I am deeply saddened you have implied that is the case because I am too young to know any better.
No I do not believe that as it is a forgone conclusion .However if as in the 1960s ,70s you got a popular left wing leader who could win elections roque elements would act .Similar to how Major government tried to discredit Clinton from his University days in England.Wilson was described as an elected dictator some in MI5 it is suggested they wanted to save the country in their opinion and overturn an elected government.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?
A question for the MI5 believers, what would the vote shares be without their direct interference? So we can know for sure how effective their interference has been. 35% the real figure for Labour? 40% the real figure for the Tories?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle would come quite close to that (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
It's from me, but it seems to be what he is doing in the video; as in, he doesn't say "carelessly thought-out" or "needlessly oppressive" anti-terror legislation, just anti-terror legislation.
***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY Back the GE turnout to be <63% with Wm. Hill at odds of 6/5 (2.2 decimal)
Invest the same amount, backing the GE turnout to be >63% with betway at the same odds of 6/5 (2.2).
Whichever bet wins, your return is therefore 20% more than your combined stake money ..... not bad over a period of just 12 days and definitely beats working for a living!
As ever, DYOR
Oops sorry, that should read a 10% profit on your combined stake - still not a bad return though for a risk free combination bet.
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
What, like UKIP? ROFL!
The truth hurts when the British people actually rather like Jezza, it seems.
We shall see if they do or not.
UKIP have won, I doubt even they care about poll ratings now.
You're a strange fellow aren't you? Not a labour supporter IIRC but ready to argue on their behalf in a partisan way and bring another party, not relevant to the debate, into it. Can't be working hard enough w your patients
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Before the Zoomers arrive in force to disparage Ruth, remember they have this quality in their ranks...
@JohnMasonMSP: @torykipper@Tyndale7 Youngsters today coming out of school more rounded than in past. Learning times tables & spelling stronger in my day but we have moved on
Are you sure that isn't a spoof account? That does seem to be too stupid for even the dimmest member of the political class.
Unfortunately true, teachers are happy for pupils to just use computers for answers , gives them a cushy life , add in 20 weeks holidays and gold plated pension, what more could you ask for other than to be as dumb as Scott and then you would always think life was great.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But they are blaming smoking. So that analogy falls flat on its arse.
This is actually just the same argument as "victim-blaming" in relation to rape, isn't it?
Some say that if people advise women not to get blind drunk and wander into dark, secluded areas on their own, they are saying those people are putting the blame for rape on to the victims.
I don't agree. The moral responsibility always remains entirely with the rapist. But to avoid putting yourself in danger is only common sense.
Perhaps we can have a thread header on what proportion of voters think that MI5 interferes in our elections, apparently it is a surprisingly broad grouping. If you don't think they are, you never question your assumptions, we have been told.
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
That seems improbable - if that was so surely the party would take a hit during a campaign which has focused on the leadership, when it has instead improved its position.
Seems fair to point out that Wilson was as mad as a meat-axe by the time he got round to detecting conspiracies against him.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
Defence, security, and past equivocations over terrorism are not the ground that Corbyn and his supporters should wish to be fighting on. Arguments about whether he supported the IRA or merely supported Sinn Fein, or the extent to which he sympathised with "liberation" movements in the Middle East are fatal for Labour. Theresa May and the Tories have towering leads on these issues.
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
What, like UKIP? ROFL!
The truth hurts when the British people actually rather like Jezza, it seems.
I imagine we will find our the truth of that claim in about 10 days.
Those calling for a period of quiet from the Tories if they get knocked down to a majority of below 50 might want to consider a period of quiet for themselves if the Tories get a majority in three figures on the basis of the population rather liking Jezza.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?
No. Nor was he responsible editorially for any articles that said that. It was simply not his position.
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
CCHQ are definitely seeking to paint him as bad a light as possible. I have no doubt the Telegraph are happy to oblige.
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
I know you are a young lad and we live in a different world today.However a previous Prime Minister believed there was a conspiracy against him, Harold Wilson .The 1970s in Britain and the dirty war in Ireland should at least make you question your assumptions of what goes on out of public view.
Well, taking aside that rather condescending dismissal, which makes glaring assumptions abo
It is a far cry from 'questioning assumptions' to accusing MI5 of directly interfering in an election - it is a classic of conspiracy theorists to assume anyone who does not buy into their claims is an ignorant sheep who never questions things, and I am deeply saddened you have implied that is the case because I am too young to know any better.
No I do not believe that as it is a forgone conclusion .However if as in the 1960s ,70s you got a popular left wing leader who could win elections roque elements would act .Similar to how Major government tried to discredit Clinton from his University days in England.Wilson was described as an elected dictator some in MI5 it is suggested they wanted to save the country in their opinion and overturn an elected government.
None of which has anything to with what I said, or the extrapolations you made from it that I do not question my own assumptions of what goes on out of public view because I am too young to have been so enlightened. In point of fact I believe our security services probably routinely break the law (break the law, deny it, then say you do it but it is legal, then say it isn't legal yet but it should be), which might paint me as a conspiracy loon to some, but what I disputed as it is without evidence and is highly implausible given it is so high risk without need, is that MI5 are involved in this election. Elections in general is also highly implausible in my view again because of how high risk it is.
Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.
What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.
Bull shit I can hardly name a Corbyn supporter on here .Southam for example derides him everyday.
Quite right. There are far more fawning May supporters on here. Or there were, but Nick Timothy's antics and May's air of mediocrity have possibly tested even that devotion to destruction, which is saying quite a lot.
No it hasn't the slavering dullards are still wetting their pants
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle would come quite close to that (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
It's from me, but it seems to be what he is doing in the video; as in, he doesn't say "carelessly thought-out" or "needlessly oppressive" anti-terror legislation, just anti-terror legislation.
But what do you really think? That he voted against the legislation because he wanted to see more terrorist attacks?
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
Sean, you don't half talk bollox most of the time. Intervention was purely in self interest and fawning to kiss US butt. Get real and we are up to our necks with US in Syria as well.
A question for the MI5 believers, what would the vote shares be without their direct interference? So we can know for sure how effective their interference has been. 35% the real figure for Labour? 40% the real figure for the Tories?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
Does anything in that indicate support for terrorism?
In the fantasy lying deluded minds of Tories it sure does.
Defence, security, and past equivocations over terrorism are not the ground that Corbyn and his supporters should wish to be fighting on. Arguments about whether he supported the IRA or merely supported Sinn Fein, or the extent to which he sympathised with "liberation" movements in the Middle East are fatal for Labour. Theresa May and the Tories have towering leads on these issues.
The Conservatives are probably also lucky that reports of the FBI warning MI5 about the Manchester bomber, Abedi, have surfaced on a bank holiday weekend.
Perhaps we can have a thread header on what proportion of voters think that MI5 interferes in our elections, apparently it is a surprisingly broad grouping. If you don't think they are, you never question your assumptions, we have been told.
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
That seems improbable - if that was so surely the party would take a hit during a campaign which has focused on the leadership, when it has instead improved its position.
Seems fair to point out that Wilson was as mad as a meat-axe by the time he got round to detecting conspiracies against him.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle would come quite close to that (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
It's from me, but it seems to be what he is doing in the video; as in, he doesn't say "carelessly thought-out" or "needlessly oppressive" anti-terror legislation, just anti-terror legislation.
But what do you really think? That he voted against the legislation because he wanted to see more terrorist attacks?
More that he regards it as morally wrong to resist them.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Those clever chaps at Guido's have the facebook video with what appears to be a real-time counter of numbers of views. It has just gone past 2 million. This induces in me a massive calm and a sense of cautious optimism.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Must have been a good afternoon Sean, you are totally off your rocker. Davidson is an annoying donkey.
She annoys you precisely because she's doing a good job and that undermines your agenda.
I know it's a question I ask periodically, but apart from the free prescriptions, retaining the winter fuel payments for Scottish pensioners and 'rethinking' the rape clause, what proposed policy, legislation or plan for government from Ruth do you like most?
A question for the MI5 believers, what would the vote shares be without their direct interference? So we can know for sure how effective their interference has been. 35% the real figure for Labour? 40% the real figure for the Tories?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
Maybe Mossad were behind the Manchester bombing?
Who knows? I strive to be reasonable, I even got accused of being a Corbyn fan last week for 'defending his honour', but this has made me quite cranky. How far am I supposed to question my assumptions when I grow up?
We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
Indeed - including the positive consequences such as fewer people ending up like Alan Henning.
"Britain" is a very strange way to spell "White's, the Athenaeum, and the Carlton".
But having wasted some time today looking into two other stories about how "disgusting" Jeremy Corbyn is, which turned out not to be what they seemed, I can't help wondering whether that is entirely accurate and fair. Are those words "show solidarity ..." a quotation from Corbyn, as you seem to imply? I don't think they are. If they aren't, how do you know why he was there or what he was trying to do? Did Corbyn call it a "show trial"? I looked at an online report in the Times, and although that phrase was in quotation marks, it was very difficult to tell where it came from. Not from Corbyn, I suspect.
In response to this story, Corbyn's spokesperson said he was lobbying for a fair trial. Some people may think the idea that alleged terrorists wouldn't get a fair trial is ridiculous and "disgusting". But is it really, viewed in the context of the serious miscarriages of justice that are known to have taken place?
I don't understand why, if Corbyn really expressed clear support for terrorism in his speeches, those speeches can't just be quoted, and then there would be no question about it.
Try this quiz. Who said these various quotes, Jeremy Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, or ISIS?
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
I really don't give a fuck what you think. If you want to support this nasty, querulous, IRA-loving, terrorist-appeasing old fool, go ahead, knock yourself out. Endex.
Sean, flapping again, two weeks in a row, how much trouble are the Tories in.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
Does anything in that indicate support for terrorism?
In the fantasy lying deluded minds of Tories it sure does.
Ah, well we've got you now Malc - are they lying (they don't believe it indicates that but are saying they do), or are they deluded (they do believe it indicates that, but are wrong)?
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.
She's the best candidate by miles. I can't think of anyone close. She personally turned around the SCONES. She's a proven winner.
I'm With You: Davidson for '22.
Davidson has got a 15% swing from the SNP with Comres yesterday and a 12.5% swing from the SNP with Yougov in Scotland, May by contrast has got a 2.5% swing from Labour with Comres UK wide and virtually no swing at all with Yougov. Albeit May starts from a much higher base
You are off your rocker, Trump gives more honest numbers than you are peddling. I know you are used to writing fantasy but for god's sake get a grip.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Must have been a good afternoon Sean, you are totally off your rocker. Davidson is an annoying donkey.
She annoys you precisely because she's doing a good job and that undermines your agenda.
I know it's a question I ask periodically, but apart from the free prescriptions, retaining the winter fuel payments for Scottish pensioners and 'rethinking' the rape clause, what proposed policy, legislation or plan for government from Ruth do you like most?
No to indyref 2. Even though a democratic vote was taken in favour of it.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
None of which has anything to with what I said, or the extrapolations you made from it that I do not question my own assumptions of what goes on out of public view because I am too young to have been so enlightened. In point of fact I believe our security services probably routinely break the law (break the law, deny it, then say you do it but it is legal, then say it isn't legal yet but it should be), which might paint me as a conspiracy loon to some, but what I disputed as it is without evidence and is highly implausible given it is so high risk without need, is that MI5 are involved in this election. Elections in general is also highly implausible in my view again because of how high risk it is.
Not a conspiracy loon. Its a matter of public record.
A question for the MI5 believers, what would the vote shares be without their direct interference? So we can know for sure how effective their interference has been. 35% the real figure for Labour? 40% the real figure for the Tories?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
Maybe Mossad were behind the Manchester bombing?
Who knows? I strive to be reasonable, I even got accused of being a Corbyn fan last week for 'defending his honour', but this has made me quite cranky. How far am I supposed to question my assumptions when I grow up?
We're being asked to believe that those who govern us are not just very evil, but also incredibly effective at pulling off acts of terror, while at the same time covering their tracks.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
Does anything in that indicate support for terrorism?
In the fantasy lying deluded minds of Tories it sure does.
Ah, well we've got you now Malc - are they lying (they don't believe it indicates that but are saying they do), or are they deluded (they do believe it indicates that, but are wrong)?
Most of them should not be allowed to go to the corner shop on their own.
A question for the MI5 believers, what would the vote shares be without their direct interference? So we can know for sure how effective their interference has been. 35% the real figure for Labour? 40% the real figure for the Tories?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
Maybe Mossad were behind the Manchester bombing?
Who knows? I strive to be reasonable, I even got accused of being a Corbyn fan last week for 'defending his honour', but this has made me quite cranky. How far am I supposed to question my assumptions when I grow up?
We're being asked to believe that those who govern us are not just very evil, but also incredibly effective at pulling off acts of terror, while at the same time covering their tracks.
Well that's the very far end of conspiracies, the false flaggers, who have a very touching degree of faith in the competence of the government to control things. I was more thinking just about the 'not believing MI5 needlessly interferes without evidence' assumptions.
In a way, perhaps the most remarkable thing about that, is that the word that you've put into upper-case letters is one that Jeremy Corbyn didn't even utter in the video. (Who knows, perhaps that's why you put it into upper-case.)
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
He has said what he says at the start of the tory attack video - "I have been voting against anti-terrorist legislation since 1983". Boasting of opposing anti-terror legislation *in principle* (rather than specific bits of legislation on specific grounds) is about as close as you can realistically get to expressing support for terrorism.
I think I agree that if he had boasted of opposing anti-terror legislation in principle, that would come quite close to support for terrorism (provided the principle in question was opposition to anti-terror legislation, anyway).
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
How many angels are dancing on the top of your pin head? lets keep it simple Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
Neither, as far as I can tell - there doesn't seem to have been a vote in the Commons as to whether the GFA should be signed.
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Must have been a good afternoon Sean, you are totally off your rocker. Davidson is an annoying donkey.
She annoys you precisely because she's doing a good job and that undermines your agenda.
I know it's a question I ask periodically, but apart from the free prescriptions, retaining the winter fuel payments for Scottish pensioners and 'rethinking' the rape clause, what proposed policy, legislation or plan for government from Ruth do you like most?
No to indyref 2. Even though a democratic vote was taken in favour of it.
Davidson today said she did not accept the democratic vote of the Scottish parliament to hav ea referendum, insiste the Tories can ban it under their dictatorship.
Before the Zoomers arrive in force to disparage Ruth, remember they have this quality in their ranks...
@JohnMasonMSP: @torykipper@Tyndale7 Youngsters today coming out of school more rounded than in past. Learning times tables & spelling stronger in my day but we have moved on
Pupils are certainly more rounded than in the past.
They must lose count of how many burgers they have eaten.
Perhaps we can have a thread header on what proportion of voters think that MI5 interferes in our elections, apparently it is a surprisingly broad grouping. If you don't think they are, you never question your assumptions, we have been told.
If this party led by Jez, McDonnell and Diane were not called Labour they'd be getting about 3% in the polls
That seems improbable - if that was so surely the party would take a hit during a campaign which has focused on the leadership, when it has instead improved its position.
Seems fair to point out that Wilson was as mad as a meat-axe by the time he got round to detecting conspiracies against him.
MI5 make a non-denial denial. So far as I can see, they say there was no official MI5 plot, and to the limited extent there was an unofficial one, it was really quite small so that's all right then.
***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY Back the GE turnout to be <63% with Wm. Hill at odds of 6/5 (2.2 decimal)
Invest the same amount, backing the GE turnout to be >63% with betway at the same odds of 6/5 (2.2).
Whichever bet wins, your return is therefore 20% more than your combined stake money ..... not bad over a period of just 12 days and definitely beats working for a living!
As ever, DYOR
Yo are going to be so annoyed when turnout is exactly 63.000%
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
I think your mother is correct .My mother thinks the same .If I were the conservatives I would go on the naivety angle rather than the evil .As evil does not resonate .Kinnock fell apart on defence in 87 been interviewed by Frost.Then the right wing media had images of surrender and mockery.He comes across as Sgt Wilson from dad's army rather than some evil person.
You might want to ask yourself why you thought he didn't. It might just be that the diet of news and information you consume is not very accurate when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn?
It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.
You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?
Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.
If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?
Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.
If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.
Must have been a good afternoon Sean, you are totally off your rocker. Davidson is an annoying donkey.
She annoys you precisely because she's doing a good job and that undermines your agenda.
I know it's a question I ask periodically, but apart from the free prescriptions, retaining the winter fuel payments for Scottish pensioners and 'rethinking' the rape clause, what proposed policy, legislation or plan for government from Ruth do you like most?
No to indyref 2. Even though a democratic vote was taken in favour of it.
Davidson today said she did not accept the democratic vote of the Scottish parliament to hav ea referendum, insiste the Tories can ban it under their dictatorship.
Nope, just holding the Scottish Government to the agreement previously reached.
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
A question for the MI5 believers, what would the vote shares be without their direct interference? So we can know for sure how effective their interference has been. 35% the real figure for Labour? 40% the real figure for the Tories?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
Maybe Mossad were behind the Manchester bombing?
Who knows? I strive to be reasonable, I even got accused of being a Corbyn fan last week for 'defending his honour', but this has made me quite cranky. How far am I supposed to question my assumptions when I grow up?
We're being asked to believe that those who govern us are not just very evil, but also incredibly effective at pulling off acts of terror, while at the same time covering their tracks.
Peter Wright in his book "Spycatcher" wrote about a number of Mi5 activities that show Wilson to be right, not paranoid.
Though I do not think they are interfering in our election. They are leaving that to the Russians, who have developed well tried techniques for such things!
Out of context much? The whole quotation seems more reasonable, even if you do not agree with it. Corbyn said in that clip: the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son, and somebody else's daughter, being killed.
He's just despicable. Jingoism??? We intervened in Iraq and Libya for good reasons - to prevent genocides, topple horrible dictators, encourage democracy. Yes, it turned out those interventions went horribly wrong, were stupidly handled and badly misguided, but we expended much blood and treasure with good intent.
Other interventions, e.g. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, went much better and we saved many many lives.
We didn't go in to these places in a spirit of extreme nationalist swaggering - i.e. from "jingoism" - to prove how great and tough we are. It's a fucking ludicrous word to use; it's a poisonous lie.
And when we DON'T intervene - Syria - we still get blamed anyway. For not intervening.
Face it, Corbyn despises America, Britain, Israel and capitalism, probably in that order, and anyone that attacks America and Britain and Israel is good in his eyes, and he is more than happy to blame the deaths of innocent aid workers on us, using any rhetorical device possible, for that same reason.
He is a c*nt of the first water and anyone who votes for him - and Abbott and McDonnell, who are possibly worse - should be doing it with their eyes open. And they should accept the moral consequences.
But didn't you only very recently admit to having considered voting for him?
Are you suggesting that SeanT is inconsistent? an extraordinary accusation!
***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY Back the GE turnout to be <63% with Wm. Hill at odds of 6/5 (2.2 decimal)
Invest the same amount, backing the GE turnout to be >63% with betway at the same odds of 6/5 (2.2).
Whichever bet wins, your return is therefore 20% more than your combined stake money ..... not bad over a period of just 12 days and definitely beats working for a living!
As ever, DYOR
Oops sorry, that should read a 10% profit on your combined stake - still not a bad return though for a risk free combination bet.
Good spot! I shall raise a glass of whatever whisky I buy with the winnings in your honour.
HYUFD - "My mother by contrast voted Tory last time and hated Clegg but thinks Corbyn is a genuine, nice man"
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
I think she knows, hence she said 'but he does not live in the real world' though she sees him as naive rather than evil. I think a lot of mildly Tory women actually quite like Corbyn on a personal level, certainly more than Blair or Brown even though they still probably won't vote for him. May does much better with men than women hence my father's hostility to Corbyn is probably not unrepresentative
I think your mother is correct .My mother thinks the same .If I were the conservatives I would go on the naivety angle rather than the evil .As evil does not resonate
It's the struggle between choosing the 'useless' vs 'dangerous' attack lines. Now, the argument might be he is so useless he is dangerous, but that's harder to sell, and he does sound reasonable a lot of the time, so the 'evil' attacks are harder to make stick. Naivety seems an easier sell, without making people uncomfortable that the attack is going too far.
Comments
MI5, the Telegraph, and Conservative Campaign HQ are cooperating to smear Jeremy Corbyn. I have never seen a clearer case.
"MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA, The Telegraph has discovered." Has the cat got Andrew Parker's tongue?
The smearing will probably intensify in the next week and a half. They will do whatever they can get away with to help the Tory campaign. They and many other Tories were foaming at the mouth with joy at the thought of smashing the Labour party forever, and now they're cacking their knickers and foaming out of their mouths at the same time, emitting words such as "Marxist", "Trotskyist", "terrorist", "anti-British", "security risk" as their hate monitors go into overload.
Why did they call the election again? Oh yes, because they'll increase they're majority, because they're "so good at Brexit". Well at least they themselves think so. Er, what was the issue again? "I don't care if my son is £30000 in debt when he leaves university, just so long as the posh boys show Brussels what's what in the game of Brexit". I mean, seriously, who on earth thinks like that?
But to say MI5 are behind it reveals you to be a conspiracy loon, sorry to say. Opening a file on him, if true, does not mean they are breaking the law to fix an election, working directly with his opponents to invent claims.
Don't forget to take a pen into the voting booth to make sure they don't rub out your mark.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Andrew Parker could slap the Telegraph's wrist for taking his organisation's name in vain when it smears the Labour leader to help the Tory campaign. He doesn't, though. Maybe he's too busy achieving this month's "plot-thwarting" target?
Meanwhile, did MI5 have a file on Conrad Black, former controller of Hollinger International, publisher of the Daily Telegraph? I should bloody well hope they did.
Before Black got prosecuted, his theft of so many millions would have made him a ripe target for blackmail by foreign intelligence agencies.
As for the Barclay brothers, they are so "reclusive".
Board members of the Telegraph Media Group.
Murdoch MacLennan
David King
Aidan Barclay
Viscount Cranborne
Martin Jacomb
Henry Keswick
John Leonard
P. Buckley
Peter Rupert
Michael Seal
Philip Peters
Rigel Mowatt
Howard Barclay
Henry Keswick - Eton, Trinity College Cambridge, Scots Guards, National Trust, National Portrait Gallery...former owner of the Spectator, and oh, what's this? Chairman of Jardine Matheson Holdings, one of the big powers in Chinese Hong Kong since the dark days of the 19th century opiate trade, now happily incorporated in Bermuda, population less than 70,000.
***** Betting Post *****
***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY ***** FREE MONEY
Back the GE turnout to be <63% with Wm. Hill at odds of 6/5 (2.2 decimal)
Invest the same amount, backing the GE turnout to be >63% with betway at the same odds of 6/5 (2.2).
Whichever bet wins, your return is therefore 20% more than your combined stake money ..... not bad over a period of just 12 days and definitely beats working for a living!
As ever, DYOR
But what I've been asking is whether Corbyn has actually expressed support for terrorism in a speech, rather than expressing opinions about the causes of terrorism. You do see that there's a difference, don't you?
The default position of any party is that we are the bestest party, therefore our Leader is bestest choice for PM. I haven't seen much sign anywhere of anyone saying more than that (though plenty have said less than that, as in I wish we still had Dave).
Indeed the only two departures from that rule I can remember were Gordon, where the Lab line was pretty much "OK so he's crap; deal with it" and Jez, where the majority think he is crap and a minority that he is The One.
I believe plenty goes on out of public view, thank you very much. But If they are involved, there would be far more effective ways to do it than inventing smears. Not least because CCHQ and enthusiastic amateurs would do that on their own without needing help from MI5. They don't need to be involved with something like that. Unnecessary and risky, with little reward given it would happen anyway. Why would they do it then?
Do you believe MI5 are interfering in the election, as Cyan does?
It is a far cry from 'questioning assumptions' to accusing MI5 of directly interfering in an election - it is a classic of conspiracy theorists to assume anyone who does not buy into their claims is an ignorant sheep who never questions things, and I am deeply saddened you have implied that is the case because I am too young to know any better. Poor kle4, he never questions authority, he doesn't know what the big bad government gets up to, he just takes everything the big bad government says at face value.
How offensive. No you didn't use the exact words above, but that is the implication by suggesting my age means I don't question things, that I merely accept what is presented before me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejmFSN2qBG0
Very good spot.
Secondly, his very premise is warped.
When ISIS invaded Iraq, and began a mass terror campaign to subjugate it by force, Iraq was a democracy with elected leaders and a parliament. People braved great personal danger to go out and vote. I'd argue its a better democracy than Russia which has held massively corrupt so called elections to prop up Putin.
As fast as he seeks to rewrite the history of his own past terrorist associations he is quickly twisting the facts of modern events.
Its a pretty poor show that 'we have sunk to a depth where a restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men' (George Orwell)
Corbyn is a disgusting personality.
http://www.stylist.co.uk/beauty/diane-abbott-on-making-a-political-statement-or-not-with-her-hair-shadow-secretary-for-state-labour
Shouldn't you remind your mum of the company he keeps?
The truth hurts when the British people actually rather like Jezza, it seems.
Foreign wars increase the risk of terrorism. Both Boris and David Davis agree. Are they traitors too?
But I don't see the words "in principle" in your quotation from Corbyn. Did he say that, or does it come from you?
Was Copeland a result that indicated their involvement, it was the first time in 80 years it had gone blue, and we have to question our assumptions? If Bolsover were to go, obviously that would be down to MI5 involvement, but would they have needed help from other agencies?
What, you cannot be offended, I'm now questioning my assumptions that we live in a country that makes mistakes and oversteps, but that largely abides by the rule of law and that our security services would not risk directly interfering so blatantly even if they wanted to.
When commenting on the cause, Corbyn found time to mention British foreign policy but not Islamic extremism.
UKIP have won, I doubt even they care about poll ratings now.
You're a strange fellow aren't you? Not a labour supporter IIRC but ready to argue on their behalf in a partisan way and bring another party, not relevant to the debate, into it. Can't be working hard enough w your patients
Some say that if people advise women not to get blind drunk and wander into dark, secluded areas on their own, they are saying those people are putting the blame for rape on to the victims.
I don't agree. The moral responsibility always remains entirely with the rapist. But to avoid putting yourself in danger is only common sense.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/the-wilson-plot
As an aside: MI5 seems to be using Cloudflare as a CDN. I doubt you'd find the FBI or CIA using a British company.
Those calling for a period of quiet from the Tories if they get knocked down to a majority of below 50 might want to consider a period of quiet for themselves if the Tories get a majority in three figures on the basis of the population rather liking Jezza.
Question your assumptions young people!
lets keep it simple
Did Corbyn vote for or against the Good Friday Agreement?
https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/
"Britain" is a very strange way to spell "White's, the Athenaeum, and the Carlton".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa
Did he want the perpetrators of the attacks to win?
You can't honestly say no.
Clacton
Labour 1
Jaywick
Labour 2
Green 1
St Osyth
UKIP 1
But he certainly voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement on the grounds that it wasn;'t a capitulation to the IRA's demands for a united Ireland.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-07-20&number=340&mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons
You might want to ask yourself why you thought he didn't. It might just be that the diet of news and information you consume is not very accurate when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher
Though I do not think they are interfering in our election. They are leaving that to the Russians, who have developed well tried techniques for such things!