UKC

Andrew Gilligan has been digging around Corbyn and McDonnell's links with the IRA. Unsurprisingly it turns out that rather than supporting the peace process McDonell explicitly rejected the first Anglo Irish agreement, and the Good Friday process peace itself unless it resulted in a united Ireland.

Meanwhile Corbyn was a member of the editorial board of a hard-Left magazine, Labour Briefing, which wrote an article praising the Brighton bombing. In its article on the IRA attack, which almost wiped out Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, the editorial board of London Labour Briefing said the atrocity showed that "the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it."

No doubt they will weasel their way out of this as usual on the grounds Corbyn didn't personally write the article, or agree with it. They were peace seekers, of course. It's the new principle, just keep lying, just like the old one.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Je...

In reply to Postmanpat: I'll bite, but i'm not buying a subscription to the telegraph. What did they say in the editorial. What you've quoted states an opinion but doesn't praise the attack.

Is Gilligan reliable - he has form for sock-puppeting , as you well know, his own articles

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yawn.

In reply to wbo:

Don't think there was an editorial. The key bits of the article were:

Labour Briefing, the hard-left magazine where Jeremy Corbyn was secretary of the editorial board, praised the Brighton bombing. In a statement written by the editorial board it said: “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it”
John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow chancellor, received a special award from the republican movement and Sinn Fein for his “unfailing political and personal support.” It was presented to him by Gerry Kelly, the Old Bailey bomber

John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn now claim to have promoted the peace process. But Mr Corbyn opposed a precursor to the peace process, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and Mr McDonnell opposed the talks that led to the Good Friday Agreement, as obstacles to a united Ireland. Both men were closely associated with groups vitriolically hostile to the peaceful, constitutional nationalists of the SDLP

The original Labour Briefing article is included. In it there is a plausible deniability line about "not agreeing with all their tactics" (of the republican movement) but also that they the magazine wants peace but "we are not pacifists" i.e..we want peace as long as it is on our terms. Funnily enough I don't think Corbyn and McDonnell attended UDA celebrations in their quest for peace.

In reply to JayPee630:

You think it's not important that the potential next PM of the UK supported bombing a previous PM?Or is it just a media smear? If so perhaps you'd like to explain your reasons for thinking that?

This is a magazine that chose to print a letter after the bombing and the Tebbits' life changing injuries taunting "Tebbit won't be riding his bike any more". I suppose that was Corbyn's idea of encouraging " a debate".

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's all a bit technical, resting on his position with various bodies but it reads like a closely researched piece and adds up to a pretty damning catalogue of support for a terrorist movement that was at war with the UK govt, unless Corbyn can come up with a convincing rebuttal. It seems a bit odd that Gilligan relies on Corbyn's refusal to answer BBC question during the leadership campaign about his links to Republican groups, including Sinn Fein . As a news editor I would have wanted these specific allegations put to him before puboication, either directly or via the Labour Party, and I'd want to see either a comment, a 'No comment' or at the very least a 'Calls were not returned' line

In reply to wbo: you don't have to pay to read the piece. The Telegraph gives a few freebies a month before you have to cough up.

In reply to Postmanpat: Sentence starting 'Meanwhile Corbyn was a member.... ' implies he was a member of a board that directly wrote an (editorial) article - that implies there was an article praising the attack. What you quote doesn't tho'.

I have no idea what McDonell or Corbyn supported or didn't support, but it is not unusual for people to change their mind or opinions with time. You'll also find that many politicians have been on the boards of political publications containing material which appears offensive later.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Telegraph's anti Corbyn article tomorrow - it's nice to have a little certainty in these turbulent times. - though what they hope to achieve I do not know as I don't think they are the natural home read of fans of the arch revolutionary.

As an aside - who would you like after DC retires - Osborne, Boris or Theresa May?

In reply to Wiley Coyote; I've blown my monthly limit. The telegraph is a regular read though they do rerun the same themes repeatedly/every single day.

Off to bed now.....

In reply to wbo:

He was either just a member of secretary. Gilligan says it is not clear which.


Disingenuous rubbish. It's not like changing your mind over health policy or whether we should be in the EU, or even whether Ireland should be united. The article is a clear statement that peace is to be achieved only on republican terms, "we (the editors of the magazine) "are not pacifists". How can a man (Corbyn) who claims to have been a lifelong pacifist not resigned from the board of a magazine stating that?

Are you seriously suggesting such an article wasn't offensive a week after the Brighton bombing?


Actually I'd agree that much of their output on the subject has been dire, which was why this one caught my attention.


Osborne I guess. Can't stand Boris.

In reply to wbo:


Their technology department is similar to their news department in terms of ability.
Just clear your cookies or use incognitio mode.

In reply to Postmanpat:

He has never supported bombing a previous PM. FFS, stop it with your hyperbole.

In reply to JayPee630:


This sounds pretty damned close to me.

"In its December 1984 leader, the editorial board (of which Corbyn was General Secretary remember) “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”
The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”
Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."
Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

In reply to JayPee630:

The Labour Briefing article specifically disowns its previous article before the bombing which argued that political methods must be focused on. It specifically says "we are not pacifists" and explicitly supports Adam's argument that "bombing is successful". If you want to pretend that writing such an article a week after the Brighton bombing isn't a statement of support for that bombing, or if your going to argue that Corbyn could be and remain a key member of the editorial board but disagree with that support, then my name is Father Christmas.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Now we are surely in the realms of fantasy
The job is already all but taken.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I thought Cameron had over-egged the terrorist-supporting attack section of his speech but if Gilligan is correct, it would seem not. Odd this hasnt been picked up elsewhere in the news though.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Is it not well known that the the British state associated with unionist terrorists and that Thatcher was aware, and so supported this?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Taken in the context of the time: the possibly illegal sinking of the Belgrano; extrajudicial killings of Republicans; the devastation and havoc being reaped upon the Miners; then yes I can see how saying violence begets violence as being something that could be said without actually condoning the pressing of a button.

I for one, like many others at the time, although shocked by the bombing, weren't altogether feeling too sorry for her. It was essentially a civil war and neither side, at the time, can claim much credit. Maybe the lack of attention (at the minute) could be because to re-examine JC would open up MT to some examination. And we all know how her supporters hate for the Blessed Margaret's name to be tarnished.

In reply to Donald82:

Rolls eyes. Unless my memory fails me, Mrs.Thatcher didn't go out of her way to portray herself as a lifelong pacifist but she was, of course, elected to protect the United Kingdom.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you'll find its snowing outside. Look! Fascinating.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's just so boring as you've so obviously got a petty right wing agenda on this and discrediting Corbyn is far more important to you than any facts. I don't see you outraged at all the dictators and mass murderers that Tory politicians have supported over the years.

And you do know this was over 30 years ago?

In reply to JayPee630:

It's not though, its right now Corbyn is denying having being "friends" with violent groups. He's not saying he has changed his mind or made mistakes, but that he never did it. Gilligan's piece suggests this is a direct lie.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Is he the reporter who uncovered all the stuff on Iraq and Kelly?

In reply to JayPee630:



I think Thatcher's relationship with Pinochet was wrong. But whataboutery in order to justify Corbyn's hypocrisy and lies doesn't cut the mustard.

Can you please clarify which "facts" about Corbyn are wrong?

You really don't get it , do you?

It's not "petty" and it's not "right wing", and that you think it is shows how little you understand the points at issue. We have a man positioning himself as the next PM who claims to be introducing a new principled politics and to be a lifelong pacifist who, the evidence suggests, was or is not a pacifist and is quite happy to lie about this.

This is true now, today, not just thirty years ago.He is leader of the Labour party today.

In reply to neilh:


Yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:
He's not a pacifist.

And I do get it, it just doesn't matter as it was 30 years ago. And plenty of people who committed acts of violence for the various sides in the conflict are in political positions now, why should Corbyn be different because he might have had some sympathies for the Republican movement? And nobody except middle aged right wing grumpy men care.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It would certainly have been a big deal if he was a real candidate back then or even a realistic candidate now. The point for me is that loads of stuff on how different groups behaved is getting an airing now rather than just dismissed out of hand before - and that overall is healthy IMO.

In reply to GrahamD:

It's also quite hilarious to see some people twisting in rage at this thing Corbyn might or might have done or said or supported or been a bit sympathetic to 30 years ago, when lots of the very same people were very, very keen to point out Cameron's alleged pig f*cking was not at all relevant as it happened so long ago.

In reply to JayPee630:


You clearly don't get it or wouldn't keep repeating "it was 30 years ago" after having it explained to you at least twice why that isn't the point.

In reply to JayPee630:


It's not thirty years ago. It's now. He is lying now. He is leader of the labour party now. If people who don't care then they don't care about who runs the country or how. You have no evidence to support that assertion and you have failed to provide any evidence to support any of your claims about "facts" etc.

Try playing the ball, not the man.

"I'm very much opposed to violence and opposed to wars. That's been the whole purpose of my life" J.Corbyn 2015
.
He acknowledges that he is not "absolutist" on this, so presumably he thinks that IRA violence against a democratically elected government and in a country the majority of which wanted to remain part of the UK is the exception which is justified. You know, like it was justified to resist the Nazi's trying to invade a whole continent and murder six million Jews. They are pretty much the same thing in his eyes one assumes.

In reply to JayPee630:


And you think that an unsubstantiated story about a pig and an 18 year old is equivalent to a well evidenced story about an elected MP in early middle age supporting the attempted murder of a PM and many others?

You're really not worth discussing anything with.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You just go on and keep getting your knickers in a twist about this with your ridiculous statements like the IRA/Nazi's one there.

In reply to JayPee630:


To be fair, the pig f*cking probably didn't happen. But the Bullingdon Club did!

In reply to JayPee630:


Why is it ridiculous? Corbyn's position it that violence is wrong except in very exceptional circumstances, for example to resist the Nazis. In which case is it not reasonable to assume that by supporting IRA bombing he regards this as equivalent to resiting to the Nazis? It is Corbyn's position which is "ridiculous", as is yours in not understanding this.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I am getting tired of this. Having sympathy for different groups within a conflict is different from directly supporting them. My take is that he takes the middle ground and sees both sides of a conflict. This is certainly a much better stance to take when attempting to resolve a conflict than doing what the UK always does and stubbornly sit on one side or the other.

If JC is an IRA sympathiser, does that make you a UDF sympathiser? And if we are to sit firmly on the UK government benches do we condone the behaviour of UK soldiers, special forces and the RUC against UK citizens during The Troubles?

In any fight, there are always two sides. Both are equally detestable to the other yet whilst being outraged at the violence commented by the other lot, we seem to feel it ok to commit violence against the other lot.

In reply to ByEek:

>
That is the "take" he tries to portray. But it's not true. He didn't attend UDF functions and celebrate their dead. Does he invite Zionists along to his Stop the War coalition meetings? What he oes is support the "other" side, including their violence, either explicitly or tacitly, and then argues that he has taken the middel ground is purely a "peace campaigner"

Try looking at the Stop the War website. It's not peace campaign any more than Israeli actions in Gaza or settlement of the West Bank is part of "peace campaign". It's a Palestinian support group. Nothing wrong with Palestinian support groups excpet when they prestend to be "peace campaigns"


Don't be ridiculous. I didn't attend UDF functions and accept their rewards.

There are two issues here:

1) Was IRA, or British violence justified?

2) Is Corbyn misportraying his position on (1)

You are conflating them.

In reply to ByEek:




Quite. You hear politicians making the case for 'engagement' with Saudi Arabia despite their abhorrent human rights record (I've read they they have beheaded twice as many people as ISIS this year). I also notice many politicians aligning themselves with Nelson Mandela who engaged in and supported armed struggle.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's just really obvious that you're desperate to dis-credit Corbyn as you don't like his politics now, and actually if it wasn't this you'd be desperately finding other things to shout about. And you get even more irate as most people don't care.

Unless you're so naive that you're surprised that a politician might lie or be a bit evasive over what he thinks and supports?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Justified? Nearly all violence is justified by someone. Whether you agree with it or not depends on your politics/ideology.

And you really are allowing your politics to show now btw.

Just be honest with this. Is it a point of political principle for you devoid of left/right politics, or do you just want to discredit Corbyn and his politics?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Obviously trying to blow up Thatcher is worse than shagging a dead pig. But that is not the comparison. One allegation is that someone carried out an act themselves, the other is that that someone 'supported' by attending meetings and writing articles a legal organisation associated with an illegal organisation which carried out the act. Not only that, social norms with regard to shagging dead pigs are pretty much the same today as they were 30 years ago whereas 30 years ago fairly large numbers of people had similar views to Corbyn on Northern Ireland and Communism.

My main problem, though, is that these days the Telegraph is pretty much click bait setting out to provide something for the UKIP voting, home counties pensioner demographic to rant about over breakfast. I don't trust anything the Telegraph says about its favourite hate figures such as Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Corbyn and anyone that works for the EU.

In reply to JayPee630:


It's extraordinary that in none of your many posts have you addressed any of the substantive evidence or addressed any of the points being made. Can you?
Dismissing it as an "irrelvant right wing smear" doesn't wash if you can't demonstrate it is only a smear. I might equally well suggest that you like his politics and so are prepared to ignore his obvious failings.



So you agree that Corbyn is just another dishonest politician and that his new "principled politics" is just an a propoganda ploy?

In reply to JayPee630:


That you can't see this any other way suggests to me it is you being blinkered and willing to defend Corbyn against pretty much anything.

And you get even more irate as most people don't care.

We'll see come the next election. Within a few weeks of the shadow cabinet being appointed we have this on Corbyn, yesterday the Shadow Chancellor doing a u-turn on supporting balancing the books (described by Ben Bradshaw as a “total f*cking shambles”, and the Int Development Secretary described as an "Internet Troll" by another labour MP. How long to you think people will go one not caring?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Not only that, social norms with regard to shagging dead pigs are pretty much the same today as they were 30 years ago

What are they - just it case I every get asked to?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Erm, I don't support Corbyn in any way. Happy?

In reply to JayPee630:


So you agree that Corbyn is drawing an equivalence between resistance to the Nazis and bombing Brighton? And because "nearly all violence is justified by someone" that makes justifying any violence OK does it?


How?


It's a point of principle that Corbyn is lying about his principles and has no claim to the moral high ground. Absolutely, I highlight in the context of believing his political positions to be wrong. Why wouldn't I?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not arguing or looking for 'evidence' as all that would be would be websites and journalist opinions! Both not very reliable and I can't be bothered entering into a PhD worthy research project to argue with you on UKC.

In reply to JayPee630:

No. Incidentally,may I ask how old you are?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh FFS, you can take things I said and jump to idiot conclusions if you want! And I'm not irate, I'm kind of finding you hilarious, as are the people I'm showing this to in the office, none of which are lefties in case you're wondering!

In reply to Postmanpat:
"So you agree that Corbyn is just another dishonest politician and that his new "principled politics" is just an a propoganda ploy?"

You don't really need the taulologeous dishonest in front of politician. Corbyn never thought he'd be in this position so he never thought he needed to be concerned who he associated with. That it now looks a little shitty is slightly unfortunate and a completely unnecessary distraction from the current u turn http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/john-mcdonnells-fiscal-resp...

In reply to MG:



Make sure no one has a camera.

In reply to JayPee630:


Well you are "arguing" just very badly because you aren't addressing any of the issues. Th evidence for what Corbyn said or thought is in writing and on the record. That's the point. It's not hearsay or "journalist opinions" but you dismiss it as a smear without even bothering to check.

In reply to JayPee630:


At least reply to the right person......

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well, actually peejay was simply arguing that both things were thirty years ago and so should be treated the same.
I don't think that supporting the bombing of Brighton was ever more acceptable outside extremist circles than sticking your dick into a dead pig.


In many cases that is true,(as I noted above) which is why I highlighted this article because it appears to have more substance. That many articles are shite doesn't mean they all are or that the underlying argument is.

In reply to JayPee630:

Your posts seem to overlook the rather basic point that, in sticking ones willy into a dead pig's mouth, no one at all is harmed. It might be a social faux pas, but that's all.

On the other hand, if one detonates a rather large bomb in a busy hotel, people can be and are killed.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Well given the injustice and prejudice against Catholics in NI prior to The Troubles with regard to housing etc, I can certainly sympathise with their position.

And given the way Israel treats the Palestinians I can sympathise with their position too. If someone marched up to you and your mate's houses with a tank and told you to p1ss off, you might decide that chucking a few bombs here or there was a good idea.

So what exactly does that make me?

In reply to Postmanpat:


To clarify: my 'dislike' was for the apostrophe in "Nazi's", not for the reverse-Godwin.

In reply to JayPee630:


to lie a little about youth or university antics, pigs, pot smoking, shagging around etc.. is one thing.

to lie involving organisations that openly kill people and almost certainly still are to this day, long after leaving uni (although he dropped out?) and becoming an MP is very different.

In reply to summo:

I wasn't saying they were the same or equivalent, I was making the point that people don't generally care very much about things they think happened years ago, which was the question the OP had originally, which was why no outrage?

In reply to ByEek:




It makes you an open sympathiser with IRA (violence?) and Palestinian resistance. What it doesn't make you is a peace campaigner or pacifist.

In reply to Postmanpat:

AFAIK he's never said he's a pacifist, in fact he's explicitly said violence is OK sometimes. And plenty of people who support the Palestinian cause would say they are for peace too. So...?

In reply to JayPee630:


they are quite happy to dig into bloody sunday? So why not this? Perhaps time is irrelevant, it was during his time in parliament. Not pre MP.

In reply to summo:

I think one of the issues with this is the fact that (like with the SNP and the ref) certain media outlets and politicians and journalists have been throwing dirt at Corbyn since the day he moved from being an outside joke, to one that seems in with a chance.

And the fact that mostly the stories have been at best total exaggeration has now left people with other stories in a bit of shit place as for most people the first reaction is that it's just another attempt to dis-credit Corbyn and his growing popularity.

So, like it or not, the lack of a response to these allegations is a result of too many people crying wolf in the last few months. That might change, but at the moment it's not a good angle of attack for those opposed to Corbyn and just makes it look like a personal attack or attempt at a smear rather than anything more.

In reply to summo:


More to the point, but something Japee can't seem to get, is that he is denying he ever supported the IRA *today*. The issue is current, not 30 years old.

In reply to MG:
I'll say it again... I'm not saying it doesn't matter as it was 30 years ago (as yes, I get the point it's NOW as you keep saying). I'm saying people perceive the issue about the IRA etc. as 30 years old and something that's been settled largely and people don't like dragging that bit of history up very much. And that's what matters, what people perceive it to be about.

In reply to JayPee630:


As pointed out above. He has said he is not "absolutist" about his pacifism, not that he is not a pacifist (except apparently in Labour Briefing). He uses the example of WW2 as when he violence might be acceptable. This does not mean he is not a pacifist just that are very occasional exceptions to his pacifism.However, he regards himself as a peace campaigner .

Plenty of Israeli settlers in the West bank are probably for peace as well as long as they can stay settled..

Essentially you re just acknowledging that Corbyn is a peace campigner only on the basis of a peace in which his side wins. So no different to almost anybody else really. Hence he has no claim to the moral high ground. Indeed, given that he misportrays his position, he has less.

In reply to MG:

I've also not seen any evidence he supported the IRA. Can you provide some since you're so sure he did?

In reply to JayPee630:

I don't think that most people who lived through it feel that way

In reply to JayPee630:


Did you read the DT article and the acompanying LAbour Briefing article? If so, it is in your court to argue that this is not evidence of support for the IRA.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's all anecdotal, but the fact it's not really being taken up as a story tends to suggest that most people don't care very much.

And I lived through it quite personally, and I don't care!

In reply to JayPee630:

certain ones do the same to other parties? Is there is problem, or is it the usual leftists can complain about anything, until someone complains about them?


And of course no stories have ever been stretched involving other parties. A deputy labour party leader would never go around throwing accusations about, without some evidence?


The lack of response, would probably mean he did it, Cameron did the same with the pigs head, he didn't deny or confirm, just tried to move on. Being PM is personal, it's all about their opinion, they lead their party etc.. That is who people will potentially vote for.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Sympathy with the cause and understanding of it is a bit different to support I'd say. And you can support some elements of something without agreeing wholeheartedly with it can't you?

In reply to JayPee630:


even when dealing with people who openly plant/ed bombs in public areas? Which would only kill innocent people?

In reply to JayPee630:


Well to quote you from above "And I do get it, it just doesn't matter as it was 30 years ago."

In reply to JayPee630:

From the article in the OP

"The editorial board of a hard-Left magazine, of which Mr Corbyn was a member, wrote an article praising the Brighton bombing. In its article on the IRA attack, which almost wiped out Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, the editorial board of London Labour Briefing said the atrocity showed that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing."

Being the general secretary of the editorial board that writes such an article shows support for the IRA.

In reply to JayPee630:

Its not "anecdotal". It's factual.


Which may tell us more about you than whether it matters.

In reply to MG:

My reading of shows no support or praising of the IRA, just a statement that it takes bombings for the British State to take notice.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But if I openly supported the British government, democracy and all that, then presumably I would be a supporter of the violence committed in NI at the hands of British security forces, a supporter of oppression against the Palestinians in our support for Israel and the equipment we supply them, as well as other human right atrocities openly committed by countries we support and arm?

I am not really sure what your point is any more. It seems that sympathising with the struggles of groups and organisations that have been oppressed by government is bad, but supporting a government that oppresses people is acceptable?

I am very confused. Which view must I support in order not to be ridiculed by people like you?

In reply to JayPee630:

Well since you don't seem to understand what "... it just doesn't matter as it was 30 years ago" means either, that doesn't surprise me. However, most people would take "praising the Brighton bombing" to indicate support for the IRA.

In reply to summo:

You'd never support bombs that kill innocent people/civilians then?

In reply to ByEek:

One option that would probably not attract ridicule would be to support the Irish nationalist cause but not bombing governments. Another would be to support the UK government's desire to reflect democratic opinion in NI but not shooting innocent bystanders by paratroopers. Just a couple of options.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It's funny that the 'elected to protect the UK' argument only ever applies to being 'tough', and never to not doing things that might make people want to kill people from the UK...

In reply to MG:


I'm concerned that you need to ask!

In reply to ByEek:




Straw man argument.

Firstly, the activities of a democratically elected government trying, in maintaining the union, to reflect the democratic wishes of the people of NI are not equivalent to the violent activities of a minority of a minority of a minority. That of course does not justify any or all activities by the UK government.

Secondly, it is perfectly possible to support either a united Ireland, or the "union" without justifying violence on either side. As a UK voter you can vote for the government but condemn their actions in specific cases. Do you attend government functions promoting arms sales, write artiles supporting them and accept awards for the same?

To avoid ridicule you have to start off by being transparent and honest, not by pretending to be a peace campaigner when in fact you were supporting the violence of one side against the other. Then you can legitimately claim to have "principles" and a "new politics" as opposed to being a hypocrite. My point is that Corbyn is the latter.

In reply to The New NickB:


It's due to a state education, had I been to Eton, I would be clear on these matters.

In reply to Donald82:


No it doesn't. It's entirely dependent on the circumstances. Anyway, what has that got to do with the subject under discussion?

In reply to Postmanpat:


But this is where the hypocrisy comes in. If you were a catholic in the 60's and 70's and applied for a council house, you had no chance because the unionists would ensure that the wards were drawn up in order to hold onto power. Similarly, the police were made up entirely of unionists. So understanding and acknowledging that there were some axes to grind is surely a good start?


But this is the step I really don't understand. How is sympathising for a group of people who have been oppressed for many years the same as supporting them? The current status quo in government is to be confrontation, to keep the oppressed oppressed and basically do and say whatever is necessary in order to keep those who inflict terror on people happy as long as they spend their pounds with British PLC.

I note for example that the government are seeking the release of this chap
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34513096
but certainly aren't publicly condemning the Saudis.

In reply to ByEek:



Absolutely. Are you arguing that justifibly promoting the civil rights of a Minority through peacul protest and political
Channels is the same as actively promoting violence and the bombing of an elected government and the break up of the State against the wishes of the majority?

It's not and nobody said it was

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm afraid you've been royally owned here Pat. Exposed as a one eyed hypocrite. 5-0 to By Eek.

In reply to Donald82:

Utter rubbish. If you think that youve clearly not grasped any of the discussion.

Are you asserting that there is no difference between support for peaceful protest and support for murderous violence?
Are you asserting that protest organisations have exactly the same rights as elected governments?

Are you asserting that targetted violence to defend the existence of the constitutionally established State is the same as random bombing of innocents?

More to the original point, are you arguing that active support for terrorist bombing is compatible with being a pacifist "except in exceptional circumstances" and "a lifelong peace campaigner"?

If your answer to the first three is that sll are the samedo you think that Corbyn in tje inyetests of the "new politics" should acknowledge that he believed and possibly believes the same?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I read the editorial, included in the article you linked to. Could you direct me to the bit where it praises the bombing? I guess I may have missed it.

Nice work by the telegraph, particularly the photo of Corbyn seeming to give a nazi salute. I'm sure that was just the first photo of him they found, no implications were intended...

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

There is no bit 'praising the bombing' of course. That's why these people ranting about that look a bit unhinged and that they have a clear political agenda they're pushing. And in actual fact one thing it's doing is pushing more people to stand by or defend Corbyn rather than anything else, the same way that Blair coming out against him actually worked in Corbyn's favour.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Read it again. Will you only believe it expresses support if its in neon lights?
But go on, try me. Tell me it is just expressing disappointment that the government didn't bow to political pressure
But congratulations for being the first petson actually to resd and question the text.

In reply to JayPee630:

I disagree that this tactic is actually in Corbyns favour. I would be very surprised if his republican stance, snubs to the Queen, and past relationships with Sinn Fein etc. will be winning him many votes other than the paid up members who already voted for him.

I think he will be a total disaster for the labour party. Lets face it , they ignored him for 30 odd years, then an experiment goes wrong and hey presto...he's leader! You have yawned already...I think your going to be in a coma in a few weeks time

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I'm not so sure. I remember laughing when he was a party leader candidate and now look. I think he might well, with some luck and some good campaigning, stay as leader until the next election. And if he does I think he's possibly in with a fair chance of winning it.

In reply to JayPee630:


Fellow Britains, peacefully going about their business on British streets. Absolutely not. Corbyn seemed to though.

In reply to summo:
But foreigners doing the same on their streets killed by the British State, you're not so bothered right?

In reply to JayPee630:


I hope you don't think these are in any way comparable. Something that could have massively disrupted a peace process to some allegation of something mildly unsavoury. Tell me you aren't that daft.

In reply to JayPee630:

Fair enough, you obviously are seeing something I am not. I just can't see the huge swing they need happening...he's too controversial and quite niche for the bulk of the British public IMO. Then you have the bulk of the press having a field day exposing all his skeletons. Maybe he can rely on sympathy votes by then

In reply to GrahamD:

I wasn't suggesting the events themselves were comparable at all. As I have pointed out, what I think is comparable is the general disinterest that the public show in events that happened (or are perceived to have happened) a long time ago.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I'm not saying I think it will happen, or that I want it to. But I think people need to be careful with suggesting things can never happen, as it has been shown many times that that isn't true, and I don't think with a little but of imagination that it's so far fetched to see it becoming a reality...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Noticing something isn't the same thing as condoning it. Unless you can direct me to something other than the one quote from the original article (and I'm assuming the Telegraph picked the worst one they could find), I think it's safe to say: nothing to see here, move along.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I’m not asserting anything really, and certainly not the first three points, but who is?

I’m really just passing comment on a debate where you’ve been made to look like a silly hypocrite and the worst kind at that - the hypocrite who shouts about other’s hypocrisy.

I would argue that support for any violence was consistent with those things, so long as it was in exceptional circumstances. But I don't think that's relevant here.

In reply to Donald82:


I'm curious about where you think there is hypocrisy.

In reply to MG:

He thinks the British state's behaviour is okay but Corbyn's alleged behaviour is terrible.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It does seem rather less emphatic than the Telegraph article suggests but the phrase "the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it" does imply some support I think, or at least ambivalence.

In reply to Donald82:


Even if he is saying that (he can answer for himself but at a guess his position is bit more nuanced), that isn't hypocrisy.

In reply to JayPee630:

Well I don't really care what Cameron might have done with a pigs head at university. It simply has no relevance.

What a theoretically possible future PM thinks of the IRA and terrorism in general is relevant - or would be if he were a serious candidate.

In reply to MG:

Seems fairly clear hypocrisy to me.

In reply to Postmanpat:
There appears to be some context that the telegraph has not included. The editorial looks like it was a response to their own previous editorial, which appears to have been condemnatory, or at least disapproving of the bombing. It looks like there was a backlash from their readership, so they have softened their stance. this seems to be the most relevant passage:

The national labour briefing executive board has subsequently condemned the November editorial and reaffirmed its support for and solidarity with the Irish republican movement, though we may not always agree with their tactics or policies.

It certainly isn't a fulsome rejection of armed struggle, but it can be read as being a criticism of the bombing, albeit a mealy mouthed and toothless one. It certainly doesn't look like praise for it.

And I'm not being sarcastic when I said I may have missed the bit where they praise it- the render of the editorial on my tablet is poor and its an effort to decipher, so I may genuinely have missed the relevant bit.

But as it stands, it looks to me like the telegraphs interpretation as 'praising' is not supported by the text, but instead is a deliberate distortion of it, and by inference, or corbyns views. The fact they chose the 'nazi salute' picture of him fits with this. And it makes me disinclined to take at face value any of the other views they attribute to Corbyn or McDonald,

A shame- there is an interesting and important story there, which looks like its been undermined by a desire to gild the lily,

Cheers
Gregor

Edit: McDonnell, not McDonald...

In reply to GrahamD:

Yup, he better condemn all those terrorists now in power in Northern Ireland the bastard. And South Africa, and... hang on... this is a bit tricky isn't it?

In reply to GrahamD:

Not a serious candidate? That was exactly what people were saying about him becoming leader of the Labour Party, so I'd be a bit careful about being so cocksure if I were you. And before you have a spasm thinking I'm a supporter of his, I'm not in any way.

In reply to MG:


Could be.

Or could be just an observation with the facts as they saw it, perhaps with dismay that it had come to that

Its certainly ambiguous, and there may well be a case that Corbyn has to answer- but as per my reply to pat, the reporting appears to have presented a distorted version of events, which now obscures the truth, and looks more like a smear than genuine investigative journalism

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Exactly. Look at the ridiculous smear Cameron attempted to make stick about Corbyn talking about the killing of Bin Laden being a 'tragedy'. Totally taken out of context and made Cameron look like a desperate fool IMO.

In reply to GrahamD:



Cameron says that the death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy:
youtube.com/watch?v=5u5uWyHJ5A4&

In reply to JayPee630:

too slow

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Agreed. Here's a direct quote from the editorial: "We believe the advances have, without a shred of a doubt, come from Sinn Fein's 'ballot box' strategy, and the positive response which that has found with some - too few - of the British labour movement."

I normally disagree with Postmanpat, but he's normally better than recycling out-of-context drivel.

In reply to Donald82:

Maybe take a look at the meaning of hypocrisy in that case.

In reply to JayPee630:

I think the change of voting system by the Collins report worked massively in JCs favour, ..whilst no doubt he is leader of the labour party...the system played into the hands of disaffected left wingers (and possibly right wingers up to no good) to pay £3 and try and screw new labour up good and proper. Not JCs fault at all, but not a reflection of the wider voting public so I would be cautious buying into the echo chamber of his fans. I would be amazed if he manages to defy history and become popular enough with his politics to win an election. Having said all of that, I haven't accounted for the tories blowing up catastrophically over Europe...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I agree to some extent, but what that has partly resulted in is a massive increase in confidence for the left wing of Labour and all those that felt disaffected by the Blair years.

Who'd have thought 5 years ago that Corbyn would be leader, and the Labour party would have more new members in the run up to his election than the Tories have IN TOTAL. And that the UK would have come within a whisker of break-up with Scotland almost leaving.

Factor in the unpredictability of what might happen globally and politically in the next five years and I'd just be really careful at saying 'never' about almost anything...

In reply to Donald82:

So you just choose to ignore my statement that "That of course does not justify any or all activities by the UK government." ? You actually have no knowledge of my views on the State's behaviour.

You have said that you don't have any views on the arguments about the justification for the State's monopoly of violence (one of the basic characteristics of a modern State) or in what circumstances that monopoly might be justifiably utilised, but are happy to assert that accepting some sort of State violence but not other forms of non-State violence is hypocrisy. I am not holding out much hope that you can have a sensible debate about that subject or even what it is about.

And of course, the point at issue in the OP, which you still don't seem to be able to grasp, is not actually whether such an attack (Brighton) was justified (in my view it wasn't) , but whether Corbyn is being honest about his support for IRA violence and how this can be squared with his claim to be a lifelong peace campaigner.

In reply to MG:

Maybe take a deeper look at the British state's position and Corbyn's alleged position.

In reply to Donald82:

Considering it's a matter of documented fact the elements of the British State worked with the Unionist terrorists and enabled murders and torture it seems a little odd for some people to get so wound up about the vagaries of Corbyn's possible support or not for the IRA.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Taking all your posts here, and your general political leanings I think it's safe to say that you see the British state's position as significantly more defensible that (your understanding of) Corbyn's. If you think they are both as bad as each other then, fine. I shall retract the allegation of hypocrisy (but disagree with your interpretation of Corbyn).

I never said I didn't have a view about state monopoly on violence. I agree there are, sometimes, differences between state violence and other violence.

I think the Brighton bombing was a terrible thing. I've sympathy for anyone hurt in it. But I've less sympathy for Tory cabinet members than I would for a civilian. They in no way what so ever deserve that, but they're not innocent either.

The point of your OP was to say that Corbyn supported IRA violence. A. I don't think he did. B. Even if he did, the British state supported violence too which I don't believe can be justified because it's a state or because it was protecting people.

Because you're calling out Corbyn but not the British state, I think you're a hypocrite.

In reply to JayPee630:


yes I am or would be actually. Collateral damage WW2 style is a thing of the past and there is no excuse. Bombing your way to negotiation table doesn't work in NI any more than it will work in Afghan or Syria. So your point was? Or rather Corbyn's still is?

In reply to Postmanpat:

'but whether Corbyn is being honest about his support for IRA violence '


Can you link to the evidence for this? Aside from the telegraph article- as I've set out, it is unreliable and has clearly distorted the reality of the source documents it reports on

He may well have done, but I'd like to see something that looks a bit more persuasive, and looks less like an attempt to equate solidarity with the political aims and methods of an organisation, with unqualified support for violent acts carried out by an admittedly closely related group.

And any thoughts on my comments on the telegraph article in my posts above?

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


On the contrary, it's the context that matters. The article explicitly disowns the previous week's piece, which is not quoted but apparently condemned the Brighton bombing. The opening paragraph makes it quite clear that the LB rejects the idea that the "the Armalite should not be given greater prominence" and believes that the "number one priority is to fight for immediate unconditional British withdrawal". Nothing there about peace being a priority. Instead, the statement that, "the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it." You really have to put your hands to years and shout Lala not to understand what is being said here.

If one is a committed peace campaigner who attends functions in which the programme asserts that "force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about (a free and united Socialist Ireland)" some people might think one should highlight one's concern's about that assertion rather than supporting the use of the armalite. Can we imagine his (or his defenders on here) reactions if a political opponent did the same thing?

People can wheedle and weasel all they like but both what is said, what is written, and what was not said or written, make it clear that Corbyn and McDonnell's claims to be pacifists or serious peace campaigners are a tissue of lies. To be fair the first people they lied to were probably themselves.

In reply to Donald82:


So you acknowledge you just guessed my views on the topic on which basis you started abusing me as a hypocrite?

Some of it the State's violence was more defensible, yes, Others of it , no. You still don't appear to have grasped the point of a discussion about the State monopoly of violence?! Jesus wept.


I asked you a series of questions relating to that topic and you said you had no view.
>
No, the point of my OP (God this is tedious) is to point out that Corbyn's suport of IRA violence (even if one wants to accept that it was tacit, which I don't) is at odds with his professed peace campaigning and that this, and hs refusal to answer questions on the subject, are at odds with his "new honest politics".

The British State always acknowledged that violence was a necessary evil in holding the terrorists at bay. In certain circumstances States can justify the use of violence.Corbyn appears to have believed that violence was a necessary evil for the Republican movement to achieve its ends but refused and refuses to openly admit this. Can you tell the difference yet?

In reply to Donald82:

>

You really do need to check that dictionary.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Before getting on to the rest. I said "I’m not asserting anything really, and certainly not the first three points, but who is?"

In reply to MG:

Nope, you really need to understand the similarities.

In reply to Donald82:

The word you are looking for is "inconsistent".

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're either rubbish at reading or you're purposefully misrepresenting what is written. "Much of the discussion [at a Battersea Labour Party meeting] revolved around the Republican twin strategy of 'the armalite and the ballot box' and reports that the armalite half was to be given greater prominence". This was before the bombing. A person of double-digit reading age should be able to understand that, in the paragraph after, the Briefing is saying that, despite the bombing, they should not lessen their political fight for a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. The words are quite small on the screen, but you seem to be only able to quote the bits that support your argument.


Being for peace does not mean being a pacifist.


See above.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


No they didn't. Even in the days of Michael Foot, Corbyn was conspicuous in the Labour Party for his pro-IRA sympathies, and his invitation of Adams and co to the Commons just days after the Brighton bombing gave (as it was intended to) a clear message. Foot himself certainly had no time for the IRA and once notably walked out of a meeting when support for them was mooted.


While the Telegraph is a shadow of its former self and I tend to disagree with most of its editorial content, I prefer to judge a story on its content rather than who publishes it.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Actually it is difficult to read once i phone but once again you choose to ignore the context. Why the hell do you think they mentioned an apparently unconnected meeting in Battersea and the armalite policy if they weren't making a point?? Why the hell do you think they reprint Adam's statement about "never laying down our arms" without as much as a caveat or a comment. Why do you think they have stated "we are not pacifists". Why do you think they have chosen to reassert their support for the Republicans so soon after the Brighton bombing with no caveat or reservations whatsover abouttheir use of violence.

And yet they profess to be "peace campaigners" (despite apparently rejecting much of the early work towards peace)



We've been through this before. He says his pacifism is not "absolute" ie.that there are special exceptions (in a Sky interview he referred to WW2) when his pacifism is trumped. He otherwise appears to regard himself as a pacifist.


So you are presumably acknowledge that he is campaigner for peace only when peace is is on his terms? ie.not really a campaigner for peace at all.

In reply to MG:

In the context of this discussion: same difference. Inconsistent views lead to hypocrisy.

A. I say you are a hypocrite because you say you are against x but (IMHO) also support y, and y is not consistent with being against x.
B. At the same time, I say I’m against x but I also support z which is also inconsistent with being against x.
C. I am a hypocrite.

I am hypocrite twice. First because I support something which I purport to be against. Second because I purport to be against hypocrisy while also being a hypocrite.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do you want to sit on my knee while I read it to you?

- The Battersea meeting was the evening before the bombing and was, in the view of the Briefing and considering the content of the meeting (not losing nerve and retreating from political advances), ironic. This leads them onto the Briefing 'losing its nerve' on its previous editorial (the content of which I'm not aware) and their retraction of that piece.

- They quote Adams saying the IRA will never lay down their arms as evidence that the only way to peace is a British withdrawal.

- I don't know why they'd say they're not pacifists. Perhaps they're not pacifists.

- Just under the headline it explains the circumstances of the second editorial. Caveat: "although we may not always agree with their tactics and policies". I'd expect they did enough criticism of the violence in the first editorial, so didn't feel the need to explicitly repeat it, although it could be more equivocal. Also, the IRA are Republicans, but not all Republicans are the IRA.



Maybe military occupation (as I believe they viewed British presence in N. Ireland) was another special exception.


So you can't campaign for peace yet think that WWII was a necessary war? Ok.

To be clear, I think the Briefing article is pretty dodgy (not to mention boring), but I wasn't a particularly politically savvy 3-year old, so I don't remember the climate of the time. However, you seem to think this Telegraph article is dynamite, but it's closer to a paper cap. *pop!*

In reply to JayPee630:


Exactly!

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Boom!

I suspect we'll not be hearing back from Pat

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Yuk!


Exactly, but we believe the previous editorial was a condemnation of the bombing. Something they are spectacularly unable to do.


Exactly, without reservation.


How many times do you need this explained? Corby says he is not an "absolute pacifist" but . ie.there are exceptions. It would seem that this includes IRA violence.


Wheedle, wheedle, wheedle. "Could be more equivocal" Presumably you mean "unequivocal" but whatever. They're writing a potentially controversial editorial clarifying their attitude to the Republican movement and cannot bring themselves to even criticise let alone condemn the violence and yu don't think this tells us something???



Would you like to sit on my knee whilst I explain blah blah? Of course you can, but on this basis Corbyn is regarding theBrighton bombing as justified in the same way as the Aliied resistance to the Nazis.


I don't regard it as "dynamite".I regard it as part of the accumulating pile of evidence that Corbyn's claims to being a peace campaigner and his "new politics" are nonsense. At very best the LB editorial is just the sort of disingenuous misleading political propganda that he claims to despise.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Your OP stated the article "praised the Brighton bombing". You have singularly failed to demonstrate that it does so, even with the actual text right in front of us. Instead, you've extrapolated quite a bit and I think you haven't carried a 2 somewhere. I think your dislike of Corbyn has made you lower your own normally high standards of rigour.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I wouldn't worry, looks like the labour leadership is about to implode anyway over the next fiscal vote in parliament. At least people got a few weeks entertainment and the comedy sketch writers a bit of material for their well spent £3s. You know your ship is sinking when only diane abbot is on your side.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I regard the line "the British government only sits up and takes notice when they are bombed into it" as praising (the success) of the bombing. It would be nice to know exactly what the previous weeks' editorial that they are disassociating themselves from actually said, but what the editorial very cunningly does is use statements and quotes from Sinn Fein/IRA to voice actual support for violence and then simply avoid criticism. It's ludicrously disingenuous to pretend that doing this is not effectively supporing violnce. It's a classic tactic of plausible deniability, which even at that stage in proceedings was probably a wise move for a sitting MP.

It seems you require Corbyn to say the same as Adams to be convinced. He may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but he's not that stupid. But if that is your requirement then so be it.

How do you think the "jokes" the editorial board allowed to be published about Tebbit and the four dead Tories chime with Corbyn's " nicer politics"? 30 years ago I guess.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>I regard the line "the British government only sits up and takes notice when they are bombed into it" as praising (the success) of the bombing.

Well, that's just a simple lie on your part, then, isn't it?

(I say, 'on your part'. It may be on the Telegraph's part as well; I haven't checked.)

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Why is it a lie? I guess you could argue it's a misinterpretation, but a lie?

In reply to Postmanpat:


And it seems you only need the word of the Telegraph to believe an article says something despite the words in black-and-white not doing so.

Anyway, to bed...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



Not true at all. The DT has been full of silly articles on Corbyn, amongst others, recently which I've regarded as clickbait and ignored. This one seemed to have more to it. I obviously realised it's polemical journalism so made the most of what facts it had, but nevertheless I think you have to be particularly obtuse or naive to believe that Corbyn wasn't effectively justifying and thus supporting violence at the time, and that his claims to be promoting peace were at best delusional.

You have to be even more obtuse or naive to deny that this is at odds with his current public persona.

Sweet dreams.

In reply to Postmanpat:


and there is the problem- you are placing your own interpretation on the editorial. other interpretations are possible, and from my reading, more plausible.

and i dont take that view as a supporter of corbyn- he may well be an IRA sympathiser. but the evidence you've provided here fails to establish that. that telegraph article in particular is a nasty piece of work, with the 'nazi salute' picture being a clear indication of the intent of the authors.

this kind of journalism, and your line in this thread, is unhelpful. i would be interested to know what corbyn actually thought about these events, without having the telegraph's editorial line shoved down my throat. its hard for politicians to take nuanced viewpoints about contentious topics; they risk being caught on the 'wrong side of the argument' by people who would reduce complex situations to binary choices, and who start invoking the language of patriotism/hating your country etc. whether corbyn was saying something nuanced- supporting the political struggle for a united ireland, but not the use of violence against civilian targets for example- and is now the victim of this sort of conflation, or whether he really did support armed struggle, isnt clear. it looks to me more like the former, but if there is (more persuasive!) evidence of the latter, then lets see it! i would like to know...





nasty stuff, and harder to explain away. he needs to utterly repudiate these comments and make it clear why he was unable to at the time, else these are very damaging. like i say, i;m not blindly defending corbyn here; but this is too important an issue to allow shoddy journalism to decide the outcome of- i expect better from the telegraph

cheers
gregor

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, because you're not a complete fool. You know perfectly well that by itself that line isn't 'praising' the bombing.

jcm

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Yes they are possible , but in the context of attending Sinn Fein IRA functions for many years in the full knowledge that the functions and organisations were dedicated to armed struggle I really struggle with your interpretation. If he genuinely wanted peace as opposed to republican victory he would have treated the different sides even-handedly, emphasised his antipathy to violent solutions by either side, and kept his communications with the extremists at arms length. He didn't.

It seems pretty clear that McDonnell lied about his support for the peace process so why are we to believe they don't lie about other things?



It's clearly a polemic and the salute is cheap but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth in it.


So would I but he won't be drawn-which provokes all sorts of other questions. If you can find good evidence from the period that he condemned violence by all sides and recognised the fears of the Protestant community as well those of the Catholics I might begin to accept your interpretation.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


>
"By itself" being a rather important caveat. Within the context of the editorial, and what else we know about Corbyn's relationship with SinnFein/IRA it's a perfectly reasonable way to regard the statement.

It is quite odd. I am sure most of the educated people on here were encouraged to read critically, to ask why the author is writing, and to interpret the real meaning of texts beyond the bald surface.. People are happy to apply that to the DT but not apparently to the LB editorial.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do you know what polemic journalism means?

In reply to Postmanpat:

and this is why the telegraph's article is so unhelpful- because it looks like a stitch up, and any genuine issues and concerns are then lost. i'm not really sure i'd describe it as a polemic- polemics work best when they eloquently marshal solid evidence into a devastating critique of something- the telegraph piece was more of a rant, stretching what evidence there was past what it could sustain.

and i dont think corbyn was at all even handed- he clearly wanted a republican victory, and was not that interested in the fears of the protestant community. the issue is whether his support was limited to the pursuit of this through political means; or whether it extended to violence against 'legitimate' targets; and whether he considered members of the british government to be 'legitimate' targets. my guess is that he probably didnt, hence the original editorial which seems to have condemned the brighton bombing; but than many grass roots members did, leading to the revised editorial, which i think still rejects the bombing, but in a much less clear cut way. a carefully worded political statement, if you like- indeed the sort of thing he's not meant to be in favour of.

his silence now doesnt look good- but then, given that he almost certainly had a position that would be at best unpopular, i think hes on a hiding to nothing trying to explain it now. at best he'll clarify that he believed something that most will disagree with; at worst, the tabloids and tory front bench will go to town and distort what he's saying into him being equivalent to a commander in the IRA. i still think he should come out and make the clarification nonetheless, and i'm disappointed he hasnt- but can see why he hasnt

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Postmanpat:



we are reading critically Pat- its just we're coming to a different conclusion than you. there is more than one interpretation of this (almost certainly deliberately) ambiguous document, and more than two positions re support or not for republicanism he could have held. i do question how much your starting point regarding corbyn is shaping your reading of the situation; on the other hand, i accept you may well be correct- its just that i'm not convinced by the evidence you've shown. its such a serious charge, and such a familiar tactic to discredit opposition, that i'm inclined to given him the benefit of the doubt for now, and not believe that he regarded an attempt to assassinate the government as fair game,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Donald82:


Of course, and this is an implicit rather than an explicit polemic, but I'm sure you know what I emant (or maybe not?)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:






In which case what he is actually confronting is the real world which has been happily disparaging other politicians for doing.Thirty years ago, by your interpretation, he equivocated because he position was on unpopular, and thirty years later he won't give us a straight explanation of his position. So really he has been doing the same as the others all this time but, because he could indulge himself on the back benches he never had to explain himself.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well lots of people on here have been complaining that the article you linked to is one sided in the extreme (ie polemic). And now you're going yes but it's polemic as some kind of defence.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well I respect your right to read it differently but I don't accept what appears to be the view of some that one cannot draw conclusions without a clear statement along the lines of Adam's. It is deliberately ambiguous, as you suggest, which suggests he has something to hide from somebody.
As I say,my current best guess is that he was deluding himself as much as anyone else.

In reply to Donald82:


LOL. Keep up !! I'm saying that despite the fact it is a polemical there is a truth within it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That does seem to be a change of tune Pat.

In reply to Donald82:

Only because you've been missing the point most of the day!! It's obviously not an objective article.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Is that you that 'made the most of the "facts"' or the journalist?

Is saying the article praised the bombing making the most of a fact or just making stuff up?

In reply to Donald82:

Me. It's how arguments are usually framed.


It's using one's critical faculties to understand what the editorial is actually saying. You know, the same way that gregor did and you didn't.

Goodnight x

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think you missed my point and then stopped replying before I could explain why you're a hypocrite

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well that's a frankly bizarre understanding of praise Pat

In reply to Postmanpat:


It's really not. It's how rubbish, one sided arguments are usually framed.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, that's probably a fair assessment....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Was reading through this doc this morning

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary%20Profiles%20A...

and saw this
"was alleged to have given #45 to a "clever confidence trickster" who passed himself off as an IRA bomber seeking to flee London Jan '87;"

Anyone know what a #45 is or refers to?

(incidentally, that document is littered with IRA/republican/Sinn Fein references....taking it all on board, I would say that it's safe to assume the Telegraph are probably nearer the truth than not)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Presumably a misprint for £ ?


Interesting line is
-
"the most frequent host to leading Sinn Feiners,
including Gerry Adams; "each time he has bee
n reprimanded by the Labour leadership but
never had the Whip withdrawn"

Presumably he preferred to keep the Whip which would explain the careful equivocation of the LB article.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I remember the climate at the time; I was in Brighton when the bomb went off. Corbyn's antics a few days later were noted and pretty much universally condemned at the time, except among Irish Republicans and the revolutionary Left.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I can imagine.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

By antics do you mean when he invited Gerry Adams to the commons? It should be pointed out that Adams was an MP at the time, though he didn't take his seat. Though it may not have been the most sensitive or politically savvy move is this not in line with what he's always said about talking to combatants and those representing them rather than shunning them?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Its difficult to talk about balance when one side is clearly the underdog, not being heard, and can do with all the support it can get. When countries occupy/invade others, the fight is no longer fair and support for the occupied country hardly needs to be moderated by equal support for the invader, surely?

In reply to sensibleken:


Not just Gerry Adams, but also 2 convicted IRA bombers (Gerard McLoughlin and Linda Quigley). This was a decade before the peace process, a time when the IRA were actively murdering people, just days after they almost wiped out our elected Government and promised to keep trying until they succeeded.

Corbyn has been given plenty of opportunity since the to distance himself from the IRA and their tactics, but has declined to do so.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jeremy-corbyn-the-a...

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm glad the Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major and Blair governments talked to the IRA partticularly as the Thatcher/Major/Blair talks were successful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/10/newsid_2499000/249...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UxAfAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&a...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/thatcher-started-ira-talks-in-1990-130589...

You don't make peace with your friends so talking to the IRA was a good idea.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

But again even bringing McLoughlin and Quigley in was to talk about prison conditions in Long Kesh, one of, if not the major points of escalation that led directly to the bombing, via the hunger strikes and Thatchers crack down.

This seems consistent with his philosophy of talking to enemies rather than Thatchers tactics which just made things work. from the very article you quoted:

"Quite simply I maintained contact with Sinn Fein and believed that there had to be a political, not a military, solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. "

so of course he didnt distance himself from them. You don't make peace by distancing yourself from the people you're trying to make peace with. We learnt this finally in 1997. As for distancing himself from their tactics, again from your article:

"I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened"

In reply to sensibleken:

I'm not sure why some people are so keen to condemn Corbyn for talking to the IRA when only a number of years later that was official UK Government policy, and is what led to the peace settlement. One can only conclude that they have a particular bugbear for Corbyn. And I'm not a Corbyn supporter at all, but lots of the right wing's views on this are just inconsistent and illogical.

In reply to JayPee630:

Who's condemning him for talking? Answer: no one. It's the tacit and actual support for violence that is the problem. But you knew that...

In reply to MG:
No plenty of people have, I wasn't just meaning on the very small world of UKC. And nobody has yet to provide any evidence of him supporting bombings, whereas others on here have provided quotes actually showing the opposite.

In reply to JayPee630:


Because Corbyn was talking to them at the time they were actively trying to kill the government of the UK and had declared that they would keep trying until they succeeded. The talks 10 years later only occurred after the IRA had declared a willingness to end their killing.

Also, Corbyn supported the IRA and their tactics. Everyone knew this 30 years ago, but some people seem to be in denial now. To his credit (in a way), Corbyn himself isn't denying it, he's leaving that to his supporters.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
>Because Corbyn was talking to them at the time they were actively trying to kill the government of the UK

Talking to them is how you get them to stop. This has been proven. Thatchers idea of not talking to them led directly to the bombing. The British had previously rejected an offer of a ceasefire in 1978

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/britain-rejected-secret-ira-peace-talks-offe...

Couple that with the rejection of the acknowledgement of of IRA prisoners, protesters and hunger strikes in the early 1980s this left the provos with only the violence as a method. This is not a justification, just an explanation.

You can criticise and abhor Corbin's meeting with IRA members and Sinn Fein MPs but simply meeting with them does not imply support. Unless there is some other piece of information saying he supported them.

Where does he say he supports the IRA and its tactics. The link you supplied says the opposite.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Do you honestly believe that the first time that the Government spoke to the IRA was when Thatcher or, better, Peter Brook commenced (restarted) talks in 1990?

In reply to sensibleken:



This is a good read. Jonathan Powell, chief British negotiator of the northern irish peace process
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-how-to-talk-to-terrorists-...

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why confine your opinions to these forums? Concerning the troubles maybe you should go to Belfast or Derry and talk directly to the people who were subjected to loyalist discrimination and terror. That would be very interesting.

In reply to sensibleken:


He was quite open about his support for the IRA 30 years ago. In the link I supplied he continually refuses to condemn the IRA, opting instead for the mealy mouthed "I condemn all violence", surely everyone knows what that really means?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Um... That he condemns all violence, regardless of its source?

What do you think it means?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

You might consider it mealy mouthed, some consider it even handed, especially when the British State was dishing out violence quite well too.

And you can support an organization's aims wholeheartedly or partly without supporting their tactics. Or not support their aims but support their goals. Or not their tactics or strategy but their goal. Or in fact many combinations of various elements.

It's not as simple as just saying "Corbyn supported the IRA." And constantly painting those that try and explain this as 'his supporters' just makes your arguments look even more like a grudge against him rather than anything more.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
And have a read of this and stop being so politically blinkered and ignorant of history... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2601875.stm

And I look forward to the threads condemning MI5/MI6 and numerous Governments and various politicians for doing the same as Corbyn was doing too.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:




Simon, with all due respect, please show where he had support for the IRA. You haven't shown that and most of which you have shown has in fact proved the opposite.

In the piece you provide he refuses to condemn Just the IRA. And rightly so as singling out one combatant amongst many is counter productive, also condemns the roll of the British military which anybody with an impartial view and knowledge of the conflict would do.
You are selectively quoting that piece.

In reply to Postmanpat:
In a friendly way, for somebody who can argue in a way which comes across as pretty intelligent (it's hard to tell online), I'm surprise you can't see the difference between praising the bombing, and saying that Britain only takes notice of Ireland when they're bombed into it, with the latter being a comment on Britain's attitude to Ireland.

*Meanwhile Corbyn was a member of the editorial board of a hard-Left magazine, Labour Briefing, which wrote an article praising the Brighton bombing. In its article on the IRA attack, which almost wiped out Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, the editorial board of London Labour Briefing said the atrocity showed that "the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it." *

UKC discaimer: what it's worth, I think it showed a huge amount of determination and grit for Thatcher to come out and talk again so soon after the bombing, I think it was very impressive and that bombings have no place in a democracy.

Regards.