UKC

Should Corbyn be tried for espionage/treason?

If there's hard evidence he accepted money to pass on state secrets to a Czech spy then an investigation would logically ensue. Otherwise it's just nuisance-making in the right-wing press.

I was wondering abut that, but can't see them printing those stories on the front pages without hard evidence.  

What?

They have the statement from a Czech diplomat/spy and are reporting it. Corroboration might be harder to demonstrate. 

It does seem unlikely, I can't imagine that he would have had access to any useful secrets as a back bench MP, in more or less perma-opposition.

Still, stranger things have happened, and if he was a spy, his cover was A1

I don't think newspapers have ever printed factually incorrect headlines before. Imagine the shame when they later would have to print a retraction in small print at the foot of page 11.

I would hope most MPs are active enough to have met lots of diplomats knowing that some diplomats are spies and knowing that all diplomats report to their government.

In the Daily Mail. You having a laugh!

Also in the news: Gullible has been removed from the Oxford Dictionary.

Are you joking? 

I can't imagine anything more ridiculous. The more obvious line of attack would be that he was too naive or stupid to figure out he was being tapped up by a Czech spy. But the right-wing press would rather get themselves in a lather about the completely idiotic idea that Corbyn had any information to commit treason with. Who on earth in government (Conservative at the time) would have trusted JC with any state secret bigger than the Downing Street cat's menu?

JC used to hide at the bottom of our garden and spy on our vegetable patch, so I can well believe that he isn't to be trusted with any state secrets.

Jesus christ used to hide at the bottom of your garden. May be he was just waiting for Easter Sunday

Wouldn't have thought he was a member of the right club to allowed to spy for the eastern bloc. Thought it was a select activity for gentlemen in those days

You could have sat him on a toadstool and put a pointy hat on his napper.

Should we try Boris too? 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/boris-johnson-described-by-known-...

Surely that's missing the point. It isn't about what secrets Corbyn could have revealed. Let's face it, he won't have had much access. It's about the company he chose to keep and the suspicion that his allegiances were, shall we say, equivocal.

Czechmate

Are you not familiar with practices of The Mail/Sun/Express et al.? I'd have thought any evidence, let alone that which would stand up in a court, is unnecessary for them to print such a headline.

He's a bugger for the chocolate.

If he's commited a crime he should be tried. Are you alleging he has or just flinging shit?

Jk

At the best, this would seem to indicate nothing malicious, just staggeringly poor judgement.  Which isn’t that newsworthy given how the same debates has been dredged to death over Corbyn and the IRA.

I know what I think, but I don’t have sufficient evidence to be definitive - just lots of related acts painting a picture.

Mr Corbyn is hardly  007 material

More Mr Bean. Could be an outstanding double bluff, got him as far as the privy council so far. 

If anything he was played, just as Scargill mostly likely had funding from there too. It has just taken Corbyn a few decades to wake up. 

You don't need to be 007 to leak information, and of course he was an IRA sympathiser when they were blowing up British women and children.

All politicians can be said to sympathise with violent and immoral organisations, e.g. sucking up to the Saudis.

Why don't you just say "I don't like Jeremy Corbyn" and leave out the extraneous nonsense? Because that's the sum total of the content of what you've said on here.

Russian trolls? Are they the trolls that fit one inside the other getting bigger and bigger?

I assume you have hard evidence for this statement?

Not missing the point but maybe not addressing all the points in quite the same way... I see Corbyn as a useful idiot in the classic manner, which seems to be not that far different from your view.

I know you are going for rhetorical affect here (patriotic and patriarchal) but just for historical accuracy, before Warrington, did the IRA blow up any British (using that in the technical sense excluding NI) children?

Other friends of Russia - useful idiots.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/boris-johnson-brexit-russi...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexiteer-think-tank-with-links-to-boris-john...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/brexit-ministers-spy-russi...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-putins-true-blue-tory-friends-z...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-person-interest-fbis-10...

I'm not sure that unequivocally demonstrating the inconsistency of the OP's position is going to have much effect.

Good job St. Thatcher never associated with terrorists.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tories-have-forgotten-that-tha...

What the bleep do things about Thatcher (who is dead) have to do with questions over Corbyn (who is alive and may become PM) and his loyalties?

We get it, you don’t like Thatcher.  Doesn’t really matter how you feel about her now, does it?

It demonstrates that asking the question, "does this person sympathise with terrorists?" is not a good test of whether any person is fit to govern, since (almost?) all politicians can be said to be terrorist sympathisers. Anyone can concoct a definition of "terrorist sympathiser" or "communist collaborator" or whatever to suit their desire to discredit an opponent. It's not political discourse, it's talking crap.

If you take that line, the “test of fitness” would be if those with whom the politicians sympathies lie are avowed enemies of the state they wish to govern.  Maggie - No, Corbyn - ???.

I stand by my earlier comment that got Lemming’s Pavlovian anti-Maggie post.  Corbyn in his dealings with the IRA showed the exact same bad judgement as he has/has not done if these Czech allegations are/are not true.  Meeting with enemies of your own state under a questionable ideological cloud.  That does not equate to Maggie + Pinochet.  Ethically both are highly questionable, but they’re different.

I think it is perfectly obvious that Corbyn is not and never has been a spy. He did not support the communist regime in Czechoslovakia at the time. Infact he signed and EDM praising the Czech workers for striking against the communist government.

Do climbers tend to be more on right of political opinion? I thought (but don't why) that climbers would be on the whole more left leaning but going by some of the responses on this thread and some others that is clearly not the case.

Are you living in 2018 with the rest of us?

Your argument is dreadful.

There are lots of reasons why JC may not be a good choice for PM, but links to the IRA and Czech spies are not among them. Which "avowed enemies" of the UK today is Corbyn allied to?

You can stand by what you want however Tory supporters must remember that they have some serious skeletons hiding in their recent history. 

IME climbers tend to be more left-leaning, and there are more lefties than Tories on UKC. But still plenty enough on the right for there to be plenty of debate on UKC. This, however, is not a good example, it's utterly fatuous!

Yes

You had me worried for a moment, but I read on and now I’m okay.  I could say much the same about yours - it appears to be that a demonstrated case of appalling judgement is no longer valid evidence about someone’s character because it was in the past.  Of course you could have said that instead of being silly and pretending that I was pretending that that past is the present.  

His past links themselves are likely not a danger now (yes, you did make the point 3 times that I was talking about things in the past, funnily enough I knew that myself) but they paint a picture of exceedingly poor idiology driven judgement that’s hard to move on from - certainly I won’t discount his past actions until and unless he clearly acknowledges them as mistakes.  He isn’t his past self - none of us are - but his refusal to step away from his past self speaks volumes.   

Well now there is a good question...  

The post I responded to:

If you take that line, the “test of fitness” would be if those with whom the politicians sympathies lie are avowed enemies of the state they wish to govern.  Maggie - No, Corbyn - ???.

I stand by my earlier comment...

I quite accept that you might find his ideological background unacceptable - that's not what makes your argument dreadful. It's the "test of fitness" above that's complete bullshit.

He chose in the past to meet with avowed enemies of the state he served, outside of all official (and at the time, secret) negotiations.  He met in ways that - being charitable - were exceedingly poorly thought out given the atrocities against those he served.

He now seeks to become leader of the same state, and in my view he has done insufficient to distance himself as he is now from those earlier choices.

If you go back to my earlier post you are quoting, you will see I was making the case that Lenming’s Pavlovian mention of Maggie and your subsequent “all leaders are palls with terrorists” line have no baring on my observation that Corbyn has form for making what at best are very poor judgements on dealing with enemies of the state he serves.

Still, congratulations.  You managed to ignore that point and jump on the way I made it, but I stand by it.  Still I can see why you’d jump on the way I made my point - as my point itself is pretty hard to argue with.

...Which "avowed enemies" of the UK today is Corbyn allied to?

Corbyn has some unfortunate 'friends' in the ME, who while not IS sympathisers, are allied with/supporters of/members of, organisations that are directly involved in terrorism, and organisations that have been directly involved with terrorism against UK citizens in the past. he's also friends of friends with some very unsavoury charactors in the Assad supporting end of the Left - the unutterably vile Vanessa Beeley for a start.

within days of becoming leader of the Labour Party he had lunch at the Argentine Embassy. two years later he's yet to have lunch with the Falkland Islands Representative in London...

Corbyn claims that his meetings with/relationships with/shared platforms with dodgy people who wouldn't get invited to the FO are about building peace - but while he'll call people from the PLO and Hezbollah 'friends', he's somehow not met Israeli settlers and he'll not call them friends.

he calls people - Adams, McGuiness etc.. from SF 'friends', he attended a Loughall memorial event, but oddly in his attempt to bring peace to NI he never found time to meet anyone from the UDA, or UVF, or even the DUP, I'm not even sure he ever spoke to the UUP, and none of them are his friends....

Corbyn has a very odd list of friends and people he's never met for one who wishes only to bring peace - its almost as if his version of a peace process is very much one sided.

he's unlikely to be a spy purely because, given his long list of friends, no one would trust him with a shopping list let alone anything sensitive - that doesn't mean that he wasn't/isn't a willing agent of influence for some very unpleasant people/causes, or that he isn't happy to pass on what he can regardless of how damaging it might be or how encouraging it might beto states who's interests are diametrically opposed to the UK's.

perhaps he's a nice, slightly gullible old boy, but i'm afraid that the pattern of behaviour tells me that he's just a tedious stutent rebel who never grew up - pathetic, idiotic, but no less dangerous for it.

You seem to be saying that he isn't politically neutral on various issues. An extraordinary claim!

Back to "enemies of the UK" perhaps?

I accept that you don't find his judgment nor his ideological background to be OK. 

But you can't write total crap about "sympathies with avowed enemies of the UK" and expect me to ignore that and congratulate you on your excellent point about  JC's poor judgement, when the topic of discussion is the Daily Mail claiming that he's a communist spy!

"Corbyn has form for making what at best are very poor judgements on dealing with enemies of the state he serves.' is an assertion not an argument. There's no evidence here, and no argument. You may have a case but you haven't made it yet. I presume you're talking about his IRA contacts? If that's the case, you need to show a) that he did have contact with the IRA (rather hinges on a debated point about whether the people he met were in the IRA at the time, but let's assume you can do this), and b) that having contact with the IRA was 'poor judgement'. That's the problem really. By Corbyn's own lights it wasn't poor judgement at the time was it? Did it harm his political career? Probably not. Was it damaging to the British government's fight against the IRA? Doubtful. Did it damage the peace process in the longer run? Or did it make a contribution to the peace process, as he would claim? How different was it from the government of the time's 'back-channel' contact with the IRA?

To reiterate, I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made, it's just you haven't made it, and as it stands your point is not as hard to argue with as you think.

That's an unpleasant way to make a completely false point but yes, they killed Lee Haughton aged 5 and his brother Robert aged 2 in 1974. Plus Jane Davis aged 17 also in 1974.

Maybe invest in some anusol before that patriarchy flares up?

They managed to shoot a six month old baby, a german woman  and a couple of aussies in a nine month period. All apparently by mistake. 

Not quite blowing them up and only one was technicaly British and a child so maybe these don't count.

edited to add

Nicholas  Knatchbull - he was definitely blown up.

I was also going to add his twin brother Timothy but while technicaly he was blown up he refused to die so we probably can't count him.

I'll also leave out the number of teenage British soldiers some of them unarmed who were killed.

No I agree with you.  I wasn’t intending to rehash the extensive debates on his IRA links, I was just noting that this Czech business wouldn’t be the first time.  My posts since were against the daftness of the “But Maggie!” and “everyone’s palls with someone’s terrorist” posts.  Your points are far more relevant.

Yes, astounding that he could have attended the meeting for the dead terrorists at Conway hall and walk away with his reputation intact.  Did it make a contribution to the peace process?  The more I read about those who risked everything to get it going, the more risable that claim is.  I’ll probably be dead before the security services declassify the relevant files.  

Best not to mention the DUP terrorist connections (UDA etc.) or Saudi Arabia's funding of terror,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/theresa-may-accused-of-dou...

Do you deny that the IRA were avowed enemies, or that he had sympathy with them?

Oh dear, you’ve done it again.  I don’t regard it as an excellent point - it was my observation on my views.  I’m well aware not everyone shares my view, and that many arguments can be laid out and debated over this.  I wasn’t trying to do that.

What I was trying to do (it’s difficutly I know) is explain to you why I do not consider your “every politician is palls with a terrorist” point in defence of the “but Maggie” point is valid here.  Latin America vs the IRA and warsaw pack communists.  Which of those were threats to the UK?

Still, feel free to continue to not engage with that point.  Try and find a new way of jumping on the exact wording of how I’ve made it or on some other tangent of my post.

That appalls me even before considering that it risked the peace process just to sort out the mess from a bizarre election.

I think it's also unlikely Maggie passed on any sensitive information or took funding from any of those people. 

If there was no truth in the Corbyn rumours he could sue the press for a hefty sum, given his seniority in office... deformation of character and how they destroyed his chance of being pm.

And if no one talks to the "other side" how do you broker peace?

Wars aren't ended by bombing people, they end because of diplomacy. Why is it the Maggie isn't being vilified for talking to the IRA, because it happened, and it was hidden from the public, while it was happening.

As for talking to people in the ME, what option do you have, unless of course you assume Israel, knows what the problem is and you believe everything they say!

The Cuban missile crisis was defused by diplomacy, which required intermediaries talking with sworn enemies, it wasn't, as it is often made out, the JFK stood up to the Ruskies and they backed down. It was negotiated and a certain amount of give and take on both sides averted a nuclear war.

Cuba is often held up as an example of how to deal with bullies and aggressors, when it was nothing of the sort, and it's a dangerous to think no one need to talk or that you can threaten your way out of situations. There's a certain Mr. Trump who seems to believe this is the way to go, with his "bigger button than yours."

So it might be wise not do condemn the talkers, quite so quickly.

There is a difference between diplomacy (even if secret) and politicians individually hobnobbing sympathetically with any tyrant going, as Corbyn seems to have done.  I suspect Corbyn is/was ridiculously naive rather than actively treacherous in any way but, like so much else, it highlights his lack of judgement.  I

Not really, I'm saying is he/was he a spy and he is an IRA sympathiser when the IRA were murdering civilians. Do you support that behaviour?

Whilst in general you’re right that diplomacy is the tool to end some wars (not all, WW2 in Europe for example) the people doing the talking need to be either the decision makers or their representatives, for example the Vietnam war talks in Paris. However JC was neither of those so his contacts with various terrorist groups would unlikely to have been sanctioned by the government and probably not by his own party leadership. With that in mind I’d say his visits were much likely to be driven by solidarity with left leaning organisations than attempting to broker any peace deals, as I don’t believe for a moment he was representing the British government in any of these meetings.

I’m sure JC would have been a person of interest to the KGB and their satellite agencies in Eastern Europe, but as an an active agent I’m thinking its rather implausible, but as a target to be used as a agent of influence quite possible, other Labour politicians have been suggested (shown?) as such. But I’m thinking he falls into the category of useful fool rather than active traitor.

Sorry Jim but the right wing press has a long history of just blatant lying. They are a serious threat to democracy, in fact one one of the biggest threats this country faces. People need hard facts and the truth to make an informed decision when they vote in elections.

However they are fed lies and deceit, it is why we are where we are now.

So Jeremy may well have been a spy and doesn't deny he was an IRA sympathiser when they were murdering our troops and civilians, is that ok with you?

It is remarkable the difference from the press, Boris has a russian spy as a friend and thats ok. Whereas Jeremy has a single contact and he is a traitor. Balanced reporting there.......not!!

Careful, that line between angry idiocy and liable is getting thinner and thinner.

jk

It was a labour government that brought peace to Northern Ireland. (RIP Mo Mowlam)

But the current lot with their crazy Brexit plans are putting that as well as our economy at risk.

Some spy - meeting for tea in the House of Commons. 

And if no one else is doing the talking, we just forget about it do we?

There was a great series on radio 4 about negotiations, and it turns out, when actually talking to both sides, you find out what really matters, and what can be done to solve conflicts. In many cases it's little more than recognition. rather than massive reparations / surrendering, etc.

So I'm all for talking rather than killing, it doesn't really matter whose doing the talking, and after all the fact Maggie was talking to the IRA, when she might not have been in power the year after, doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened.

Ignoring the IRA and having actors speaking their voices, was simply ludicrous at best, and quite possibly ended up with more people dying.

I wasn't really trying to make a point, beyond that Jim was pushing quite a clear agenda but his 'gallant' argument didn't really seem to be one that made a lot of sense compared to all the things that can be said about the IRA.

I am quite interested in the tactics and strategies of 'terrorists' though and both the limits and lack of limits various groups have applied in their targeting. I remember Omagh and Warrington reasonably well, and particularly the horror of children being killed, but the PIRA while clearly reckless with civilian life rarely seemed to target children. They would also blame others when children were hurt or killed, suggesting they knew it was wrong - whether that be morally or just cynically for PR reasons.

I must have read about the M62 bombing in the past but didn't remember it. I definitely don't remember the Judy Ward case, although the 'quality' of West Yorkshire police's investigation and the involvement of George Oldfield would be familiar to anyone who has enjoyed (?) David Peace's Red Riding quartet. Bringing this back to the original point, have a look at this picture of Judith Ward's release from prison - guess who is standing behind her? http://thejusticegap.com/2017/05/buried-alive-case-judy-ward-25-years/

What's any of this got to do with Corbyn being a spy, allegedly, as well as an IRA sympathiser?

You'll remember that the voice overs were in response to a huge public outrage at terrorists being allowed to excuse but not apoloogise for their latest atrocity on national TV.

While the simple response from many of the public would have been to deny them any air time at all, the TV channels were keen to be seen to be impartial and hence had to give the terrorists their voice.

The government's answer was to allow the terrorists opinions to be heard but not their actual voices.

A seemingly ludicrous solution to an equally ludicrous situation.

You didn't want to go on about this bit a minute ago, now you do, so:

The argument

 - You cannot lead a country when you are allied to its enemies

 - Jeremy Corbyn is allied to enemies of the UK

Therefore Jeremy Corbyn cannot lead the UK

Is total crap. Premise 2 is false - Jeremy Corbyn's association with the IRA was at a different point in history to him standing for PM. This is what I meant by "writing total crap about avowed enemies of the state". But we're done with that bit, you said it wasn't really what you said, or it wasn't important, or something, and the important bit was that his dealings with the IRA and a Czech spy showed poor judgment. 

I think the argument "Corbyn is bad/cannot be PM because he is a terrorist sympathiser" is obviously refuted by the fact that PMs are *always* terrorist sympathisers. But your more detailed point that it's acceptable for a PM to sympathise with terrorists in the national interest, or just be mates with someone who commits atrocities that don't affect the UK, but you draw the line when the terrorist offences are against UK citizens apparently requires more attention.

I think this is a load of shit too. It doesn't move the argument on anywhere - you're still staying that his actions as a back-bencher 30 years ago meeting Sinn Fein reflect in some way what he would do as PM. But of course he couldn't do the same things because a) the political environment is totally different and b) he'd be PM! So he couldn't do anything like the things he did as a radical opposition back-bencher. As I've said, I accept that you think his judgement on these matters was poor, but I'm saying, so what? I'm all for disagreeing with everything JC stands for, and everything he *would do* as PM. That's political discourse. "He was friends with terrorists as a back bencher 30 years ago" - whether or not those terrorists bombed UK citizens or not - just doesn't register with me as anything interesting, because every time I hear anyone use the argument "but those people are terrorists so anyone who sympathises with their political aims is evil" it is entirely obvious that they're full of shit.

Look, I don't even vote Labour, and if I did, I wouldn't support Jeremy Corbyn. The reason I'm having this debate is that I find the whole tone of "he's a communist spy! he's a terrorist sympathiser!" to be pathetic. It's emotional reasoning: we all know the IRA are evil because they bombed innocent people, so let's associate an emotion of moral disgust with JC by association with them. This has no value in political discourse; it's an anti-democratic tactic to manipulate those who don't or can't engage in policy debate. 

Does that engage sufficiently with what you were saying, or am I still just picking through your wording?

No that’s it I’m out. Here you accuse me of saying something very slanderous that I very clearly never said.

You were the one (Sunday 22:21) saying “since (almost?) all politicians can be said to be terrorist sympathisers.”

I have never said that it’s acceptable - just that there’s a clear difference between a UK politician consorting with clear enemies to the UK and a UK politician consorting with people who are not direct threats.  I have not passed an opinion on this one way or the other but don’t let that stop you drawing totally spurious conclusions from what I say and claiming that’s my “point”.  It’s slanderous - although an insight into your views perhaps.

What a crazy world where we make estimates about the future based on observations (plural) of the past.  What would I do, beleive his manifesto pledges instead? I don’t think his past actions directly predict his future behaviour but they tell me a lot about his character. Remember that my many words here aren’t defending that view - but my calling out the “but Maggie” and “but all politicians” posts as being irrelevant to me reaching that view. 

You’re quick with acusations of being full of shit here.  I don’t beleive I have accused him of being evil.  It’s clear to me where our views differ, and I find yours unfathomable - but I am not going to call you full of shit or put words in your mouth.

No it hasn't. Now I'm just off to drink my own weight in tea, it's a cure for cancer, right?

I assure you I wasn't trying to say "look - you think terrorism's OK". I think we both accept that the government of the UK is always going to be supporting, somewhere, some violent and immoral organisation or other. 

I just don't see your distinction as important, because I don't see that talking to Sinn Fein was in any way colluding with any actions against the wellbeing of the UK population. The tone smacks of "the man who hated Britain". The whole thing to me is irrelevant and an utterly fatuous field of discussion.

If you're going to make an inference about the future from the past, you have to find something in the past that relates to something in the future. I don't see it. You can generalise what you're saying to "bad judgment" but other than that I'm still completely lost about what I'm meant to be afraid of.

I don't think your distinction about threat to the UK is relevant, I don't see how JC acted in a way that was against the interests of the UK. Perhaps you've tried to convince me, but it doesn't feel like it!

The reason I'm having this debate is that I find the whole tone of "he's a communist spy! he's a terrorist sympathiser!" to be pathetic. It's emotional reasoning: we all know the IRA are evil because they bombed innocent people, so let's associate an emotion of moral disgust with JC by association with them. This has no value in political discourse; it's an anti-democratic tactic to manipulate those who don't or can't engage in policy debate. 

I was really trying to be clear there, but apparently it's not clear enough. So I give up!

You could have fooled me.  My very first post “I know what I think, but I don’t have sufficient evidence to be definitive - just lots of related acts painting a picture.”  It’s not just the IRA.  It’s not just the Argentinians.  Each time the side he allies with or talks to is the side that - at the time - is set against Britain.  This paints a picture to me, and it’s not of someone who could lead the country even half as effectively as the current batshit disaster party.  

Corbyn always sides with the British people. He does not side with the British establishment (tories, bankers, Aristocracy, monarchy etc).

Corbyn is essentially a 'campist'. (Not a 'campsite' as Autocorrect suggests...) That is, he allies himself with any group, organisation or state that is opposed to capitalism, (especially its American manifestation). There's a good essay about this here - 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/no-jeremy-corbyn-not...

If he was a spy, I'm a fish.

Have you read Jonathan Haidt's stuff about morality and politics? Sounds like loyalty/betrayal is a big deal for you, but for me doesn't register (care/harm and fairness/cheating are the basis of my judgments, pretty much).

Agreed, but on top of that, it was intimated that there would be no discussions with the IRA, when we now know that simply wasn't true. The majority of the public, think that by being hard, stubborn and not talking you win, when it's exactly the opposite. You gain peace by negotiations and diplomacy, you only have to look at Korea to see the difference between, threats and an open hand.

It's not the politicians that end up loosing their lives when war / fighting breaks out is it?

Besides that, you can agree with a cause and not agree with the methods people go about trying to achieve it.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

jk

While it was fairly obvious that the government would have to talk to the terrorists as there was no military solution what was not acceptable at that time was for these talks to be made public.

Many people already saw the terrorists as rubbing the people's noses in it with their post atrocity press conferences and discussions with these people would have been a step far too far.

It should, of course, be noted that peace was only gained by seemingly giving in to many of the terrorists demands.

Whether a peace obtained in such a way is a good thing is a topic for another debate.

It seemed to work in South Africa, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis

I was extremely happy that people, for the most part, stopped being murdered by terrorists in NI.

I was far less happy about the early release of convicted terrorists and the election of some terrorists into political office.

Me too, but we've had many years of peace now, so it seems worth it to me. Even more so since the people making the decisions about peace are the least affected when there isn't peace.

That's the nature of a negotiated compromise, each party feels they're giving and getting.

I suspect it'd be a pretty short one if you involved those who actually get to get on with their lives in peace rather than just the armchair generals raging at their TVs and tabloids.

jk

Continuing with the idea that Corbyn is a campist, this is an interesting piece from a left-wing journalist that clarifies what kind of a spy Corbyn was dealing with, why people in politics (politicos and journalists) might find people like this interesting to talk to, and what Corbyn could justifiably be accused of. 

http://littleatoms.com/corbyns-spy-connection-and-me

If you can't be bothered reading all of this, try this quote:

" So I met Sarkocy primarily to complain, time and again, about how his scumbag regime treated its citizens.

I hope Jeremy Corbyn did the same, and I’m told that he took up the cause of Czechoslovak dissident exile supporters of the group Charter 77. But I’m just a bit unsure. Quite a lot of the British left in the 1980s was at best completely clueless about – and at worst subsidised by – the disaster for socialism that was the USSR. Quite a few of Sarkocy's contacts were idiots who thought Charter 77 were counterrevolutionaries and everything was cool about the Soviet Union – because it was anti-imperialist. Labour Action for Peace, a pressure group that had no formal role in the Labour Party, and for which Corbyn was an officer, was notoriously and idiotically pro-Soviet."

From 1980? Have you not changed you mind about some of the things you thought in 1980?

It's a strange world where we keep holding people up to be some sort of paragon of virtue, who are supposed to know everything and get everything right from day one, or they are unfit to be our politicians.

There are plenty of things we should be looking at, that people are saying and doing now, not nearly 40 years ago, and that goes for both sides of the house.

I know a lot of people, who'd be classed as racists, if you took their words from 1980, the same people are nothing like that now, we all live and learn and change as we gain knowledge.......don't we?

Why are you asking me?  It was a quote from someone else.

Again, who's doing that? Not me, but see my final paragraph.

Of course. Who's arguing otherwise?

Some people do... but again, why are you asking me?

I guess your point is that people shouldn't rigorously be held to account for actions and statements from a long time ago, and that's okay up to a point. But it depends what kind of thing was involved and whether people really have learned, changed, gained knowledge. Sometimes it's clear that they haven't actually changed, and that what they said and did many years ago still illuminates their thoughts and activities now. 

Is there ever a right time for a serving MP to be secretly dealing with Soviet spy networks, unless they are actually really working for mi6? 

If it was last week or last decade, it is still a lack of allegiance to the UK by someone who claims to be open, honest, credible etc..  

It’s also complete cobblers: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/20/no-evidence-corbyn-was-spy...

Ahh but is he playing the Maltese Gambit or perhaps the Double-Prague ploy? 

I presume you are looking forward to him proving this when he sues the various press for deformation of character? 

Is there ever a right time to tell lies about people?

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/02/andrew-neil-slams-tory-campaign-of-l...

Just stop it.

You're making a fool of yourself as well as losing respect.

Given his far left ideals, public singing of red flag, anti uk governmrnt stance his entire life, pro left union man etc.. I'd be more surprised if wasn't than was. As above, I imagine you are looking forward to him having his day in court when he proves his innocence by presenting his stasi file showing he was spied on and not the informer?! 

Just skip to the bottom and watch the video.  Those MPs ought to resign.

http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles/you-need-to-read-the-letter-from-co...

cheers

Toby

Quite aside from it being defamation, I do love the idea that you think Murdoch et al have any more allegiance to the U.K. than Corbyn does.  

I will just wait for the credible press to report his legal win in court. Not the battle between various internet sites taking sides. There is a legal procedure he can publically use to clear his name. 

The source of this guff also claims to have been responsible for Live Aid. He has precisely the same amount of credibility as you do. 

The difference is, I have no desire to be PM  I don't need any credibility. 

Probably not. But there are independent legal procedures Corbyn could follow if he wishes to publically deny this, proves his innocence and gain credibility. The choice is his. 

You have some moral obligation not to post unsubstantiated guff. Or at lest you would if you had any integrity. 

But anyway... do you know if he met Lord Lucan after organising Live Aid? Asking for a mate.

The smears contain this truth: Some people want you to think that the idea of putting people before profit is criminal. Beyond that, the idea that Corbyn was a spy is spurious BS, and anyone who pounced on it, shouting "You see! I told you all along!" needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

No he was too busy catching nessie that week. 

This is unsubstantiated guff concocted by the Scum and gleefully followed up by other fine examples of the gutter press. Corbyn's credibility isn't undermined by it, it's fiction and diversion by foreign based billionaires who don't give a flying f*ck about this country. The fact that you are perpetuating says much about your lack of character.  

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbyn4PM/photos/a.1455997631360978.10737418...

You are coming over as a bit of loon here. Clearly Corbyn wasn't selling secrets or a spy in any sensible meaning of the word.  Not being able to bring yourself to say that straight means you are moving in to serious fake-news, disinformation, propaganda territory.  He is/was lots of other mostly foolish things, of course, but giving any credence to the wild spy claims just moves attention from this and actually gives him more credibility generally.

Far left, FFS!! Grow up, Far left, really.

Anyone who has libelled him would be very unwise to let it go to court, the evidence that it is a complete fabrication is mountains by the second. Things like the fact that the day he was supposed to be meeting a Czech agent in Parliament, he was in Derbyshire.

As said I have no idea what he has been upto but i don't trust the guy and wouldn't be surprised if he had been meeting people. If you do trust him fine your choice it's a free world. He can clear his name quite easily if he wishes. 

Ok extreme far left, so far it's not even visible from the centre. 

It wasn’t a comment on Corbyn’s credibility.

http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles/you-need-to-read-the-letter-from-co...

This looks like precisely that, although I doubt it will get to court.

Should have expect this, don't knock the messiah on ukc!!! All hail comrade Corbyn. 

No, I don't trust him either. And I'm sure he met people. That doesn't make him a spy.

No. Informer perhaps. Devil would be in the detail. He can clear his name. 

Alternatively, you've been called out for perpetuating what increasingly looks like blatant lies, made up by the gutter press who are desperate to subvert the U.K.'s parliamentary democracy. But Corbyn is a commie.

I haven't been called out. The guy has publically supported communist causes in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if he extended his support privately. I'd happily believe anything he 'proves' publically through formal independent means. 

Can you link this proof, independent source etc Denial isn't proof. I will await something formal. 

I will exit this debate. I just can't believe the blind faith people have in Corbyn. Quite scary. 

You do know that libel defendants have to demonstrate truth, not the other way round?

So... you believe the story from the Scum but require independent sources for refutation of the story ? ????Use Google. I'll even give you a clue " Stasi files on Corbyn ".

see how you get on. 

I can't believe the blind faith some have in august organs like the Scum.

Truly scary.

The stasi have millions of files. He will almost certainly be on one of them. As informer or as person of interest etc.. depending on which side of the fence he was.  He can access his file and publish it. 

I'd rather he accessed his file(As he can) and publish it. Job done and truth will be known by all. 

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

But you're happy to believe the Scum story without any proof of its authenticity? I really hope you're just trolling.

No, all he needs to do in court  is say "prove it" to the Sun etc.  If they can't, he wins. Since that is.tbe current situation, how does.him going to court make.it more believable for you?

Didn't say that did i. I'd rather the truth and will believe it. You are willing to believe rumour as long it supports your side. Corbyn has the means at his disposal. Time will tell.

No secret police files held on Jeremy Corbyn, say German officials - Sky News

https://apple.news/AyxpBJBpVQ3ucgt1Gdc_DSg

Because he can publish his stasi file. It is not just denial but proves which side he was or is on during that era. Was he the one who was spied on or was he an informer to some degree or other. 

https://news.sky.com/story/no-secret-police-files-held-on-jeremy-corbyn-say...

(I even chose a Murdoch source for you)

Today in  Germany the Federal Commission for the Stasi Records has made a public statement saying there is no record of any file on Corbyn (or, for good measure, Diane Abbott). Are you now prepared to admit that your repeated calls for him to 'publish his file' are utterly nonsensical, and that you've been duped by the right-wing press?

Let’s get this straight. We have proof that he was 200 miles away when it is claimed he was meeting a Czech agent in London, the Czech government say its all bollocks, the German government say they don’t have any Stasi files on him, the British government say it’s all bollocks. Yet you think that Corbyn should show you his Stasi file to prove his innocence anyone who things the claims might be a little spurious is showing scary blind faith in Corbyn. At least we know where we are.

How does it feel to have zero credibility specifically when discussing your absolute favourite topic?

Maybe the truth matter more than you seem to think it does, even people who aren't keen on JC still care about the truth. Well, most of them

You're like a rabid dog when it comes to JC are you sure you're OK?

A bit like Donald and his guns but in reverse, no matter what real evidence there is you seem to want to blame him anyway.

You've not just let us down, you've let yourself down.

Classic left wing debate there....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy...

Detailed investigation into Corbyn's support for IRA terrorists here...

I don't know what Jeremy thought and I wouldn't want to speak for him, but do you not see there might be a difference between supporting and cause and supporting the methods people use to try and achieve that cause?

For instance I support the Palestinians in there fight against Israeli occupation and oppression, I don't agree with people blowing themselves up on buses and killing innocent people.

Corbyn was quite famously asked 5 times to condemn IRA murders on TV, I watched it, he was unable to do so. The conclusion is inevitable, he supports IRA murderers and bombers, and he supports their methods.

I agree that exasperated resort to insult is not a good way to behave but it's not restricted to the Left. Another smear... You could just as easily say that what Summo was offering was 'classic right-wing debate' - ignoring evidence, supporting discredited smears etc.? (And no, I don't actually think that's restricted to the Right.)

There's a really nasty dose of stupid doing the rounds at the moment and it seems to be contagious.

jk

Maybe you should learn a little more about MI5's approach to surveillance of Labour MPs...

https://theconversation.com/why-its-unfair-to-single-out-jeremy-corbyn-over...

Not the issue is it, it's concerning that Corbyn,the leader of the opposition supports the IRA and their atrocities.

Could you provide a YouTube clip of the interview which you claim shows Corbyn supporting the IRA and their atrocities.

I have no axe to grind with Corbyn.  I don't like anyone involved in politics as I believe they are all career politicians and liars.

So with this in mind, the one gripe I have here isn't that he is accused of something or that he denies something.  What I have issue with is someone who claims to not trust the press and having agendas on changing the press setup, not being happy to issue his own answers to the questions posed.

Come on Mr Corbyn, release a youtube video where you explain everything and stop the press making up lies. 

Or is the truth more painful than the lies...........

Politics is now a game of who is the most successful liar.  Don't get sucked into it

Wasn't that the interview where he condemned all violence but wouldn't be drawn into specifically condemning the violence of just one side? If it was another interview then I'd be interested to see that - can you provide a link?

I refer you to my above comment - "When did you stop beating your wife?". Why should Corbyn be drawn into justifying his position when the false accusation has already been explicitly debunked by credible sources?

There's a real dose of stupid and nasty in the left, and it masquerades as debate.

It's so much more fun to insult people than to try and engage in debate, isn't it? No wonder the left have given up.

Pretty much my feelings, its clear Corbyn supported the IRA and their methods, even going to events honouring dead terrorist and sharing platforms with wanted terrorists according to the investigation above http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy... 

Why would a credible politician not use this gift to raise their profile and denigrate their opposition? Unless he's scared that other information may come out?

The art of warfare is to get your opponent to fight on a battleground you have chosen for them. Why do you suppose the false accusation was made? Genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.

Sometimes I wonder if the people writing for the Daily Mail are making dummy accounts just to shitpost on the forums.

Yes that's the one I remember too. Seems fairly sensible to me to state that, in principle, atrocities committed by 'republican' terrorists were neither more nor less atrocious than those committed by 'loyalist' terrorists. Whatever one's view of Corbyn I honestly don't see how it's possible to disagree with that statement. Why should murders committed by either side be singled out?

Still, it could be worse. He could have entered into a supply and confidence agreement with the political wing of a terrorist organisation in order to prop up a failing administration.......

I was responding to your own post. The link I posted was a rejoinder to the piece you linked to. How was that not the issue? 

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/exclusive-mi5-opened-file-jeremy...

Detailed investigation into Corbyn's support for IRA terrorists here..."

The leader of the opposition use an accusation of treason to 'raise his profile'. It's a bit early to be on the pop!

jk

You clearly didn't bother to read the link in my earlier post so here it is again:

https://theconversation.com/why-its-unfair-to-single-out-jeremy-corbyn-over...

(my italics)

Direct quote:

"There were Loyalist bombs as well.  I condemn all the bombing by both the Loyalists and the IRA."

Even the BBC are calling it: outright lies and disinformation that your fellow Tories are spreading. That's the real scandal isn't it?"

https://www.facebook.com/TheOtherRedux/videos/1582058681859552/

Several high profile Conservatives, including a Cabinet Minister, are going to have to make grovelling apologies, or face a very expensive day in court.

I think the accusation was made to make him look duplicitous. His past is littered with mines for someone wanting to become prime minister, so why not throw a bit of shit and see if it sticks?

https://twitter.com/hourlyterrier/status/965899627475210241

Zackly. That's why these "why should he respond to the claims" ideas are daft.

See Nick's reply.

Glad to see you're true to form, all insult and no content. Thank god for people like you, the left may stand a chance if it weren't for you!

So what is your point about being scared of other information coming out?

That's the point, *there is no content*. It's pure shit flinging and you're as engaged in it as the rest of them though not being as dim as some you wrap up your slurs and innuendo in rhetorical questions rather than just blurting them out out. There is ample opportunity to make similar barely founded slurs against various Conservatives in the knowledge that shit sticks even when it's groundless and all while being far enough down the liable list to feel safe but I'm not. I'm not because I don't think that's the way politics should be done. Apparently you do and my respect for you ratchets down another notch.

jk

This is all reminiscent of the famous and probably apocryphal tale about Lyndon B. Johnson during one his races for congress. He supposedly told one of his aides to start spreading the rumour that his opponent was fond of barnyard animals. His aide replied "Christ, Lyndon, we can't call the guy a pigf*cker. It isn't true!", to which Johnson said "Of course it ain't true, but I want to hear the sonofabitch *deny* it."

The rags have a widely discredited charlatan (who says he came up with LiveAid) saying one thing and literally all the agencies supposedly involved saying that it's bollocks. Why should Corbyn engage beyond just dismissing it?

Now you're just playing stupid for the sake of it, there is debate HERE 173 posts of it.

Well ok, none of that debate has come from you, admittedly, as all you can do is insult people.

I'd like to ratchet my respect for you down another notch, but that's just not possible I'm afraid.

If he just dismisses it, then many will believe he cannot deny it without implicating himself further

How is he meant to do more than deny it and threaten to or actually sue those responsible?

The vast vast majority of whom will have already made up their minds. His opponents want him to be heard talking about this. What he says won't even matter.

He's contributed more to this debate than you have to all the debates on UKC, ever.

Being as he comes out of the great unwashed 70s, 80's and nineties I'm sure he has a MI5 file as big as several small rooms of a colliery terrace. In depth vetting as part of privvy council membership... unlikely he got through all that without being flagged. 

D

That comment actually made me Laugh Out Loud

Well quite. Throw enough manure and they hope some of it will stick.

It's entirely symptomatic of a Government who are unable to speak positively for anything they have achieved, who are dysfunctional, in disarray, in Government but not in control. They know they're going to get wiped off the face of London at the next council elections and that no one, no one is going to vote for this shower at the next GE. They have done nothing, they have achieved nothing. Their only hope is to lie and to smear in the hope they can blacken the name of a basically decent man who people are beginning to see as the next Prime minister in preference to the shower of incompetents, liars and crypto fascists that currently surround the cabinet table in number 10.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-could-lose-half-of-lon...

Labour can expect a lot more of this to come. It worked for Trump so why can't it work for whatever clown will lead the tories into the next GE. 

..and here's the lawyers from letter to Ben Bradshaw: http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles/you-need-to-read-the-letter-from-co...

The accusation was made to to make him look treasonous and was seized upon by several hard of thinking Tory MPs as such. Corbyn has responded but chose not to fight on the battleground that had been prepared for him. At least one Tory MP has already received a letter from Corbyn's solicitor and I think one or two others must be considering taking legal advice if they haven't done so already. It is depressing that you consider it acceptable to "throw a bit of shit and see if it sticks". Where would you draw the line when it comes to lying? 

There you have it again folks, the left in debate, never rising above the level of the old playground taunt;

I am rubber , you are glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you!"

Well he could go on TV or Radio and challenge his detractors,  those who are claiming this, to face him in public debate. He could look like someone whose morals and integrity, not to mention patriotism, mean something to him. Not like a chickening out softy.

Oh but it will, even if only to those who support him. See my reply to MG above.

Sorry, what was that you were saying about playground taunts?

Great, good on him, he has my respect for that. I do hope he has the courage of his convictions ot take it all the way.

Why do you think I found it acceptable? I find it as reprehensible as lying. Whoever started this accusation is a shitbag of the highest order.

There you have it again folks, the right in debate, never rising above the level of the old playground taunt.

Well that rather depends on Ben Bradley's response - let's see if he's a chickening out softy.

Whats all this warfare and other political bullshit.  I made it clear in my post that its a game of who can lie the most and you in fact are playing the same bollox game of diversion.

Every politician has the ability to use youtube as a soapbox and for it to be their own words without any misconstrued press manipulation.  Blooming hell he would even be able to script it if needed.  So without going down the route of not arguing with stupid because they are better at it, why doesn't he just answer the questions.  Or are the answer worse than the insinuations?

Lots of traditional right wing buzzwords with the standard unthinking populist reference to patriotism topped off with an insult that everyone else grew out of in primary school. Classy. 

What questions do you want answering?

What contact and what information he divulged to spies over the last 20-30yrs. 

He's done that.

The warfare reference wasn't in response to your post. Bollox diversion? Is that like a kick in the knackers?

Like it

Yes the lifelong pacifist, made an exception for the IRA to blow people into little bits, WTF is wrong with you?

Meanwhile in the real world:

She was a government minister who had secret meetings in a foreign country. She has no security with her and the meetings were not recorded, she lied about being on holiday and the number of meeting she had. She was not following British Foreign policy and she could have given away confidential information. She could be a spy for all we know and she wasn't even sacked!!

Of this we have an abundance of proof and yet, we're asked to focus on some "hypothesis" from 30-40 years ago.

Isn't it time to focus on a little bit of truth and reality?

You could always look up

Its a point of fact, not an insult or taunt. Prove otherwise.

I thought he was only a pacifist when it suited him at certain rallies and then wasn't a pacifist when he was trying to convince the UK electorate that he would be willing to use military force and/or lethal police action as required?

Are you suggesting, he was OK with the IRA bombings then?

Or did he make the point it was OK to use force to save some else's life? But you knew that anyway.

Why is it I feel the need to explain, very obvious stuff, to seeming (for the most part) reasonably  intelligent people? Why is it your blinkers come down and you choose to believe any old shite, because it's about someone, or something, you don't like?

It's a funny old world!

This would be the same MI5 that had files on Ricky Tomlinson, a number of Greenham Common Women and Bruce Kent. Oh! and John Lennon, that well known terrorist, murdering bastard!! Or just about any trade unionist or activist!

You do make me laugh

You made the initial laughable and childish accusation, (when I had not addressed anything to you,) so the burden of proof on that "fact" is up to you.

Grow up.

So if MI5 have files on "Ricky Tomlinson, a number of Greenham Common Women and Bruce Kent. Oh! and John Lennon" then whoever else they have files on, must be innocent of all possible wrongdoing?

What a strange notion!

And Boris Johnson.

best not to give right wing distraction information bombs any air time by responding. This story is generated as a smokescreen

You mean his 'interesting' Russian connections? 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/suspected-russian-spy-pictured-with-his-good-...

- for anyone who hasn't seen it. I don't for a minute think Boris is a spy, but he's arguably being as careless as Corbyn was in the '80s. 

It sounds like you're saying that anyone with an MI5 file is guilty until proven innocent. I hope not - 

"According to the Stasi’s “dictator logic” or mentality, “we investigate you, therefore you are an enemy” (199). "

http://www.englishworks.com.au/stasiland/

You need to distinguish between your Bradleys and your Bradshaws...

Different sides of the House...

I don't think he cheered, punched the air and danced a little jig at the bombings.
However, there is a nagging suspicion that he might have smiled to himself and raised a silent toast if a British soldier got killed by an IRA member whilst on 'active duty'.
 

Up until the Election he was a proper hard core Pacifist.  During the Election, he seemed to change his stance and eventually became a potential Prime Minister that would use Nuclear weapons.  Bit of a turn around don't you think? 
He even suggested keeping the subs, but not arming them at one stage...

Because not everyone is a slavish adherent to the Corbyn gospel? 

Yep.

Me neither, but if it's good for the goose etc.

No, he's saying that anyone left of Thatcher who has ever had a MI5, Stasi or KGB file, union membership, library card or parking ticket is a clean shaven Osama bin Laden wannabe with a poster of Bobby Sands on his lentil encrusted kitchen wall and probably approves of bicycles, whales and homosexuality as well.

And he's trolling.

Yes, of course exactly that!!

You've done it again, I'm here wondering how a relatively intelligent person can come up with the statement above from what I wrote.

My response was to a post that was implying that because MI5, supposedly had a file on JC, then there's something to be worried about. It's as stupid as saying, "whoever else they have files on, must be innocent of all possible wrongdoing?" but htat's not what I meant, and it's pretty obvious that's not what I meant.

Being on the list might be significant, but it also might mean exactly sweet FA, so what the point?

I your head maybe, you're a bit of a sick f*ck to be honest, I don't know where you get this idea from.

You mean until 2016? So, he was pro IRA and supporter of their methods, but only until it suits you.

It's nothing to do with slavish adherence, it's about being a human being, if JC was pro IRA methods it would go against everything he's said and all of his actions. Mind you he's probably too busy to think about that because he's probably too busy drowning kittens and puppies, I'd imagine.

Obviously you may be right but... I find this singularly hard to credit. Even many of those complicit (i.e. passively, not actively supporting such actions) didn't smile or raise a silent toast. Instead they probably felt shame - which, in my view, does not absolve them an iota.

Without the British Army's intervention in Northern Ireland (no matter how politically compromised it quickly became) there would have been civil war.

Immensely brave men and women died to save lives. Sadly they've been airbrushed from history.

Mick

I'm a bit confused about your definition of pacifism and how it applies to the various activities and policies conducted by Corbyn over the years.
With the IRA, you say that his pacifism means that he wouldn't condone any violence whatsoever and in so doing so dismiss the idea that he might have some sympathy with them killing British soldiers. When it comes to his role as potential PM, you say that pacifism allows the use of reasonable force, including killing, if it is deemed justifiable.
Which one is it?  It can't surely be both?
If it's the former, then should he really be trusted with what he has said in recent times about being a PM that could be trusted to defend the UK?  Is it just empty words to win votes?
If it's the latter, then isn't it possible, that he would see as partly justifiable the killing of British Service Personnel on a Military v Military basis (PIRA ASU v British Army) to further the cause of a united Ireland?
In respect of the above, I know Corbyn has condemned the bombing of civilians, but has he ever categorically condemned the IRA for the killing of British Soldiers? 

It's quite possible to believe in a united Ireland but disagree with using violence as a means to achieve it. Isn't that obvious?

Corbyn is just not exciting enough to be either terrorist or spy.

He's just an opportunist fence sitter, enjoying a brief period of rather dreary popularity.

Nobody said he was a terrorist, but he is an IRA sympathiser, even an active  IRA supporter according to the Telegraph investigation.

I'm not saying that Corbyn actively condoned such violence, just that if it happened, he wouldn't be overly concerned by it.

We should definitely trust the Telegraph's opinion of anyone on the left. They've proven themselves to be scrupulously impartial in such matters.

Of course not, that would make me as daft as the person who claimed MI5's files on JC were not to be considered, as they also held files on John Lennon, Ricky Tomlinson et al.

The point being that it MAY be significant. To brush it under the table, due to them also holding files on others would be a disservice, and a prime example of turning a blind eye on any possible fault in JC just because you agree with his politics.

Would you like a link to the sky interview where JC was asked five times to condemn the IRA's bombing atrocities, but refused, saying only that "all bombing" should be condemned?

https://news.sky.com/video/sky-askes-corbyn-will-you-condemn-the-ira-108867...

You're a bit thick aren't you. Condemning all bombings would include the IRA bombings. Doh... 

No doubt he had something like this in mind when he meant 'all'... 

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/ira-british-army_n_4314960.html

Obviously, because you're a sharp cookie, you'll point out that British Army killings were with bullets. Guns, bombs? It was all a bit dreadful. 

Well, he didn’t exactly say that. His point was that  MI5 had files on many people, often without due cause. 

It may be significant, yes. But there is no evidence at all that it is. You are clutching at straws in an increasingly desperate attempt to smear Corbyn. I am no fan of JC, and there are plenty of more substantive things to criticise him for. I’ve made a couple of posts that might give you a clue - his campism etc. - and others have too. Why not follow some of these things up if you want to discredit the man? And stop smearing the posters on this thread who object to your baseless arguments as being committed Corbyn loyalists - a few may be but it looks to me like most of us are more concerned with restoring qualities like proper use of evidence and argument to the debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-ben-bradley-tor...

Not particularly, but thanks anyway. How does that prove he's an IRA sympathiser then?

Ooh, that's nice. Bradley is a particular twerp and it's good to see him eat shit.

Thank you, at least someone understands, I suspect he does to but, is choosing not to.

The original post I was replying to implied because he was on a list, it must be true. Which of course it doesn't, I don't know how to make it any easier to understand.

Thread:

I'd be interested to know what those clamouring for Corbyn to lawyer-up now say, given that he now has? Making up and defending this sort of shit isn't politics. It is undermines politics and democracy, exactly as Trump does.  Those defending it should be ashamed and embarrassed. And I think Corbyn's a fool.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/24/ben-bradley-apologises-unr...

I don't think it's a good thing for politics either, but what would you do with the constant smear campaign, surely the Conservative party could admonish BB. If it was a Labour MP they'd be calling for a head on a stake.

What do you do about fake news?

Edit. Sorry just reread you post and you seem to be saying the same as me, still what do we do about it?

It appears they can, there's a lot of gullible people who believe any old shit that gets printed in "newspapers", it's about time they learned to question a few thing we're spoon-fed by the people in charge of them.

This is probably about right: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/corbyn-czechoslovakian-spy...

Basically corbyn was and is anti-capitalist and anti imperialist. He regarded the UK as capitalist and imperialist hence sided with many of its enemies regardless of their own failings. More useful idiot than evil mastermind.

Seems we’ve been looking in the wrong place for historical spying activities: 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unmasked-the-daily-telegraph-reporter-da...

Unusually I find myself agreeing with you! I said something similar above. His campist ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend‘ approach will continue to undermine his supposedly ethical stance, which is one of the reasons why I don’t consider him a suitable leader of the Labour Party.

You're rather stupid aren't you? If he had meant "all bombing" to include the IRA atrocities, why could he not state that the IRA bombings were to be condemned? Simple, if he stated that he would put himself at risk of being ostracised by the IRA and Sinn Fein, who he was rather more than just chummy with.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/when-jeremy-met-gerry-1-7106302

Obviously, because your not a sharp cookie, you won't realise that that is irrelevant to the debate. (Hint, we are discussing JC.)

Agree, I made too much of that, mea culpa.

Can you point out where I've "smeared" him? If anything I've been broadly supportive of the man, ( in this thread.)

I've no desire to discredit him, and have merely followed the flow of debate.

That word "smeared" again? Give me an example of where you think I have done that to a poster, ( good advice; check what I was responding to when you feel I "smeared.")

Interesting article that, read with my morning tea and crumpets. But "historical" as you say, and the  man was only a "Telegraph" reporter after he confessed to his treachery, and was no longer involved with Moscow.

You're... the word you're looking for is you're. 

And as for being "chummy" with Sinn Fein/IRA (or talking with States in direction opposition to UK policy) it is possible to have sympathy with a point of view without directly supporting one factions methods. If you can point me in a direction to where JC said killing by the IRA was a good thing then you win the internet. (That should keep you busy...).

I rather like the idea of someone who doesn't find glory in killing. 

In case anyone is still interested in the OP, there's an interesting article on the spy connection in today's Times.

Thank you.

Agreed, but for a politician to be seen supporting, to whatever degree, people who were bombing civilians on the British mainland is rather fraught with dangers.

In December 1984, two weeks after an IRA bomb killed five at the Tory Party conference in Brighton, Corbyn invited convicted IRA volunteers Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn to the House of Commons. It caused uproar at the time.

Would you like a match for that strawman?

You know what, I apologise for that. It was a cheap shot. 

This is where we differ then. In spite of a brother who was miraculously uninjured at Arndale I could acknowledge that the problem went both ways and found it hard to pick sides. You can't denounce the IRA without looking at our (Westminster's) involvement and history.

It was a genuine question and not a diversion. Maybe it is sliding scale stuff, but no matter which way this gets spun, JC is very low down any metric for being a spy/colluding with IRA bombing. 

Nope it was fine mate, a bit of banter never hurts.

That's not the point though is it?  We're not debating the rights and wrongs of the conflict, but Corbyn's presumed partisanship. For Corbyn to be seen as aligning himself, to whatever degree, with the Sinn Fein / IRA crowd is political stupidity at best.

Disagree on both points. It's not a "genuine question" it's a "when did you stop beating your wife" style attempt to claim that Corbyn was not in support of the IRA. No one would be stupid enough to state that Corbyn found the IRA atrocities a good thing, however no one can deny he had close friendships with them that taint his politics.

Not to bring this up again - but if aligning yourself with Sinn Fein (Corbyn never outwardly aligning himself with the IRA- an important distinction even if in reality we all know the deal) is politically stupid what are your thoughts on the Conservative party numbering in their ranks a former out and out fully paid up member of the IRA as a councillor?

Whatever people’s thoughts on Corbyn you’d have to be blind or willfully ignorant not to see there is negative media attention placed on him that is not reciprocated to others. 

Not saying he should not be critcised but that criticism should be on a level playing field.

Except his support seems to be growing in spite of a pretty shoddy onslaught by quite a large portion of the press. So maybe there are many out there who too align with his sympathies. Doesn't make me an ardent Provo. (And I know, no one has said as much, but that's where the inference leads which is why we get headlines like "Traitor").

It was a genuine question, one that Ben Bradley couldn't answer and is being called on it. And lots of people are conflating a 'close' friendship with Sinn Fein with outright support. Which is why I think this ties in with the spy lies. They keep slinging the mud hoping it sticks. As I said before, JC doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. 

Caught a feed on Google this morning which I can't access fully. Sunday Times article about why Rees Mogg and certain factions on the right are "playing with fire". I believe the suggestion is that if they play too much hard ball then eventually the sympathy will shift left, which means JC. 

If Corbyn had stayed as a back bencher, then no one would be paying any real attention to his current or past activities.
However, he is a potential PM and therefore should be rightly scrutinised in the minutest detail because one day he might be the person that decides on the most critical of UK policies and actions.
If Maria Gatland ever gets into a similar position in the Conservative Party, then I fully expect her to be annihilated in the media for her IRA past. 

“I think the accusation was made to make him look duplicitous. His past is littered with mines for someone wanting to become prime minister, so why not throw a bit of shit and see if it sticks?”

“Well he could go on TV or Radio and challenge his detractors,  those who are claiming this, to face him in public debate. He could look like someone whose morals and integrity, not to mention patriotism, mean something to him. Not like a chickening out softy.”

“Would you like a link to the sky interview where JC was asked five times to condemn the IRA's bombing atrocities, but refused, saying only that "all bombing" should be condemned?”

“You're rather stupid aren't you? If he had meant "all bombing" to include the IRA atrocities, why could he not state that the IRA bombings were to be condemned? Simple, if he stated that he would put himself at risk of being ostracised by the IRA and Sinn Fein, who he was rather more than just chummy with.”

And again... “I think the accusation was made to make him look duplicitous. His past is littered with mines for someone wanting to become prime minister, so why not throw a bit of shit and see if it sticks?” 

Down to not bowing low enough, or any old claim that get blown out of proportion, true or not?

The bowing and spying stuff is just flannel, but do you honestly think, that as a potential PM, that his hobnobbing with various 'dodgy' persons/parties, etc. shouldn't be subjected to the finest and minutest scrutiny?

It should be subject to scrutiny yes, ( I think finest and minutest - might be a bit over the top), but so should all our politicians, you could start with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and ask who get what out of this organisation?

Meeting with people is different to supporting them and so far with JC we seem to be on a bit of a witch hunts to find something, anything they can pin on him that's bad. If you can't see what's happening and why they are doing it, you have some very powerful blinkers on.

You only have to read some of the replies near the top of this thread to see a number of people are so anti-Corbyn they'll believe anything!

Going back 30 or 40 years and expecting people to have not changed their views or stance on any subject is pretty extreme if you ask me. It's like you asking people not to have learned anything in the last 40 years. Who want's politicians who would change their opinions on anything in the last 40 years?

Look at yourself 40 years ago or even 10 years ago and see if you've not changed you mind about anything.

I used to think Tony Blair was worth voting for!!! FFS!

It really isn't though is it? Sorry to do a Brexit, but tell enough people one thing enough times (I'm talking about a certain red bus) and it suddenly becomes fact.

As for scrutiny, I can't think of a politician in recent times who has had so much scrutiny. And yet he's still here. 

Wilfully stupid, no good can come of that. Though to try and claim that the IRA and Sinn Fein were anything other than bedfellows is disingenuous.

You mean like the easy ride Theresa May gets?

Agreed

Well of course as Prime Minister he would be likely to spend time 'hobnobbing with various 'dodgy' persons/parties, etc." anyway, as history tells us. See Pinochet, Saudis, Ceausescu, and many more. So what are we looking for? His past experience and qualifications? (Note: this is not a party political point. Both sides do this when they think it is in Britain's interest.)

Ah well, we all make our choice of aligiances, mine and yours differ, so be it.

It's hard not too isn't it? If you're my close friend I will support you.

I agree, that is a shitty way of conducting politics

If they do, then it will be well deserved.

Describing what his opponents are doing. Not a smear by me.

A suggestion as to how he could deal with his opponents. Not a smear by me.

A link was given showing this to be a true statement. Not a smear by me.

My view of the situation. Not a smear by me.

I asked for an example of where I had smeared a poster, and you give this?!?!!? Dear god Bob, go buy a dictionary and learn what "to smear" means, then get back to us. 

Rees-Mogg should, as this is a right winger smokescreen to conceal anything doesn't assist his plans for the UK now he thinks he is democratically elected supremo maker of UK policy

No coincidence all this shite was made up while Labour was about to revise its position towards a more sensible attitude to the CM

Unfortunately I forsee more of it. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/24/tories-hire-army-tweeters-ta...

Not if you use your brain it isn't, all you have to do is think a little.

I agree with the Palestinians having self rule and freedom from persecution. I don't agree with Hamas blowing people up.

I agree that, Saddam Hussein was murderous bastard and should have been removed from office, I don't agree we should have invaded Iraq and caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to achieve this.

I think most right thinking people believed the ANC had just cause, it doesn't mean I was happy with any of the violence. It's not hard to grasp is it.

There might be many causes to die for, there aren't any I can think of that are worth killing for.

Like many conflicts around the world isn't it to do with your perspective on who's the freedom fighter and who's the oppressor?

Remember Nelson Mandela the terrorist?

What was that about insults?

"Why would a credible politician not use this gift to raise their profile and denigrate their opposition? Unless he's scared that other information may come out?"

I think the credible, bit might just be the smear he's talking about. And let's be honest here you do have form in denigrating and jumping on the anti-JC bandwagon. From bowing to ties not done up enough, you do have some history. Playing holier than thou doesn't really wash, now does it?

What the stupid right wing press doesn't seem to understand, their doing all JC's advertising for him, every time they print bullshit stories Momentum membership increases.

They also don't seem to realise that the majority of thinking people realise bullshit when they see it also.

"Freddie Star ate my hamster", anyone?... outrageous.

But you are not JC and you're not aspiring to be the prime minister. If he is seen, and do a search on "Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA" and you will soon have sufficient evidence, that his association with them is being widely disseminated, and much evidence of his links to them is available. 

That is never going to go well for him.

Cheap evasion.

Ditto.

You clearly don't understand how smearing works then. It worked as a smear by withholding key facts. 

[Edit] I missed this bit. Just because it's your view of the situation it's not excluded from being a smear.

You seem to have a problem yourself in understanding how smears work. They don't work simply by presenting lies - they work by taking stray facts and distorting and conflating them into a usefully false statement that can be deployed to discredit opponents. You may not be the originator of the main smear in this case but you seem very attached to it.