So they’re admitting they’re okay with using violence to achieve political change.

A Momentum spokesperson has said “Momentum is a nonviolent organisation that believes in, and organises for, nonviolent social and economic change. While some of our members are pacifists, others are not and argued that in certain circumstances, such as fighting fascism in world war two or struggling against apartheid, violence is legitimate.”

Obviously some will use this in an attempt to portray Corbyn supporters as hell bent on violence, but it is ironic, to say the very least, that so soon after Corbyn is condemned by some for refusing to express a willingness go to war with Russia his supporters are being denounced for not being pacifists.

“Profound religion leads to political commitment and in a country such as ours where injustice reigns, conflict is inevitable… Christians have no fear of combat; they know how to fight but they prefer to speak the language of peace. Nevertheless, when a dictatorship violates human rights and attacks the common good of the nation, when it becomes unbearable and closes all channels of dialogue, of understanding, of rationality, when this happens the Church speaks of the legitimate right of insurrectional violence” – Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador 1917 – 1980, defender of the poor, died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Salvadoran Death Squads, and now on the way to being declared a saint by Pope Francis.

What is the JC Supporters club trying to equate themselves with the Suffragettes? It’s like Weymouth FC claiming to be Arsenal.

And why do they need to prepare themselves for conflict (sorry, slight exaggeration there 😉 ) or even protest.

and i am the troll Frowns
They did not – which you would know had you searched for the info or informed yourself before commenting- I did so thanks for reading 😉
Furthermore i gave it as an example of where direct action may have been justified in order to achieve a noble legitimate political goal – do you agree or disagree that their direct action was legitimate and helped engender the women’s vote? what about the people in america who did direct action for black rights or , dare i say it , and even jamby is with me now the jewish “terrorists” who helped create Israel?

I doubt anyone thinks it a good thing or a great thing but sometimes it is a legitimate thing.

in the soundbite world thats pretty catchy to beat them with the full acccount is a lot more wordy and i can sort of see their point – though its still daft to have removed it

I would focus on what the official Momentum spokesperson said, since this is about Momentum’s position, not on what some person who the Guardian managed to dig up allegedly said to them.

I really don’t think that the Guardian can be relied to give a fair and unbiased account on anything to do with Corbyn. They have proved beyond doubt not to be Corbyn supporters, nor have they proved to be unbiased against him. The Guardian would much rather his rival won and everything should be seen in that context imo.

250 pages! On Jeremy Corbyn!!!!250!

It’s almost as if there’s an obsession with Corbyn eh ?

It’s 260 pages btw.

aye the guardian have been terrible and they absolutely hate him- its worse than this thread for bias

Make the most of it.

Direct action =/= violence

I’m all in favour of direct action in certain circumstances – blocking nuclear convoys, protest marches, the actions of Greenpeace. Those are not violence.

I really don’t think that the Guardian can be relied to give a fair and unbiased account on anything to do with Corbyn. They have proved beyond doubt not to be Corbyn supporters, nor have they proved to be unbiased against him. The Guardian would much rather his rival won and everything should be seen in that context imo.

Perhaps they care about the Labour Party – they are not alone in not being supporters BTW. Perhaps they also reflect the interests of their readers. Everything could/should be seen in that context IMO.

Wrecker – where else do you go for such a rich vein of comedy gold? It’s a better soap opera than the TV versions and a refreshing alternatives to sporting action. Above all the defence of the indefensible is side-splitting.

I suggest you read BTL on the Guardian to see what their [online] readership think of their views

TBH its is little more than hatchet jobs and agin the LSE study is available if you want to base this on facts
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf

and the guardian take on it- no idea why its gone quotation mark crazy

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jul/19/yes-jeremy-corbyn-has-suffered-a-bad-press-but-wheres-the-harm

from the report – its hard to disagree

The” results” of” this” study”show that” Jeremy” Corbyn”was” represented” unfairly” by” the” British” press”through”a”process”of”vilification”that”went”well”beyond”the”normal”limits”of”fair”debate”
and”disagreement”in”a”democracy.”Corbyn”was”often”denied”his”own voice”in”the”reporting”
on”him”and”sources”that”were”anti8Corbyn”tended”to”outweigh”those”that”support”him”and”
his” positions.” He” was” also” systematically” treated” with” scorn” and” ridicule” in” both” the”
broadsheet” and” tabloid” press” in” a” way” that no” other” political” leader” is” or” has” been.” Even”
more” problematic,” the” British” press” has”repeatedly associated” Corbyn” with” terrorism” and”
positioned”him”as”a”friend”of”the”enemies”of”the”UK.”The”result”has”been”a failure to”give”the”
newspaper”reading”public”a”fair”opportunity”to”form”their”own”judgements”about”the”leader”
of”the”country’s”main”opposition.”
The” overall” conclusion” from” this” is” that” in” this” case” UK” journalism” played” an” attackdog,”
rather”than”a”watchdog,”role.”This is”unhealthy” from”a”democratic”point”of”view”and”poses”
serious” ethical” questions” as” to” the” role” of” the” media” in” a” democracy,” especially” when” it”
concerns”the”legitimate”contestation”of”the”Government”of”the”day.”
When” a” democracy” cannot” rely” on” its” press” to” provide” its” citizens” with” information” about”
political” parties” that”meets” the” basic” standards” of” fairness,” then” we” can” expect” a” political”
process” that”is”equally”unbalanced.”Recent”events”may”have”provided”broader”evidence”of”
this”disturbing”trend.”

BIased reporting like this leads to Brexit votes for the EU is full of unelected bureaucrats who want to make our bananas straight

The News really does have a responsibility to be impartial and critical . Ist odd that the regulations for the written media are nothing like the broadcast media and what folk need is the facts and the freedom to form their own views not to be spoon fed Fox news type polemics that distort the facts and are terribly one sided
Unless You dont GAS about the truth that is

where have momentum said they want to be violent Ben?

they have not suddenly decided they will get violent with everyone but that is undoubtedly how it will be spun

My first post and here you are spinning it as violence

I’m all in favour of direct action in certain circumstances – blocking nuclear convoys, protest marches, the actions of Greenpeace. Those are not violence.

This may be in the eye of the beholder

there will be a point where a copper gives a lawful order to say unblock the road and it gets ignored, If the coppers then baton charge and use rubber bullets – unlikely obvs exp the later- what do the protesters do then? Defend themself or not?
STILL NOT VIOLENCE* but i can see how it can be spun that way

* .
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Its just self defence

I accept most folk, who dont do protests wont get this pin dance hence why it was daft of them to remove it. I think you probably can so dont fall into the trap of misrepresenting what they have said/mean. they have not enshrined being violent in their rules

where have momentum said they want to be violent Ben?

They’re removed the word “non-violent”.

If the coppers then baton charge and use rubber bullets – unlikely obvs exp the later- what do the protesters do then? Defend themself or not?

Defend themselves how? How do you defend yourself against the police? Bring your own weapons? How has that ever worked out in the past?

It’s not in the eye of the beholder, it’s not a pin dance. Violence is hurting a person, and brings you down to the level of your opponents – that’s why so many protest movements (and almost all the successful ones) have been rigorous in pledging non-violent direct action.

Maybe they’re just trying to make Corbyn fell at home? He loves a good terrorist organisation. 🙂

By the way, I don’t think Momentum really want to launch a violent revolution. Most of them, anyway. But they are staggeringly naive.

“Furthermore i gave it as an example of where direct action may have been justified in order to achieve a noble legitimate political goal – do you agree or disagree that their direct action was legitimate and helped engender the women’s vote?”

Ah, “direct action”

Tell me, which of the following acts of “direct action” would you see as being legitimate in the name of political aims:

i) Marching on parliament
ii) Shouting out and disrupting parliamentary sittings & courtrooms
iii) Graffiti
iv) Breaking windows of government buildings
v) assaulting politicians
vi) Throwing yourself in front of the Kings Horse
vii) Setting fire to post boxes
viii) cutting main telephone lines
ix) destroying works of art
x) Planting Pipe Bombs

I’d say that most people saw a clear distinction between the acts posted above that would qualify as “non-violent direct action” and clearly illegal acts of criminal damage bordering on terrorism

They’re removed the word “non-violent”.

Non sequitur

I have never ever pledged to be non violent – have you? Can i therefore assume we are both violent thugs hell bent on being violent?

that’s why so many protest movements (and almost all the successful ones) have been rigorous in pledging non-violent direct action.

Neither of those premises is true and apart from agreeing Momentum were daft I dont think we will agree on that so I wont go on about it.

Maybe you’re just trying to make Corbyn fell at home? He loves a good terrorist organisation.

What has all this nonsense about violence go to do with a group of people who apparently want to:

Encourage those inspired by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership (sic) campaign to join and get involved in the Old Labour Party.

? Assist members in making their voice heard in Old Labour Party debates. Microphones holding support given freely.

? Provide support, training and mentoring to help and encourage potential Militant candidates, ensuring there are more suitable candidates with a wide range of life experiences, especially working class, black, Asian, ethnic minority, LGBT, disabled and women candidates.

? Facilitate and coordinate the building and support of organisations that can make concrete improvements to people’s lives, thereby demonstrating how collective action and Labour values can transform our society for the better.

? Organise inclusive events, rallies, meet ups and policy consultations for political education and mass mobilisation for a more democratic, equal and decent society.

Or is all this just a front?

Aux armes les citoyens, formez vos battaillons…..

I have never ever pledged to be non violent – have you? Can i therefore assume we are both violent thugs hell bent on being violent?

No – if you haven’t pledged something one way or another, then it’s impossible to state which is the case. I’ve never pledged to avoid broccoli, so whether I eat broccoli or not cannot be inferred.

However, if I had pledged to avoid broccoli, and then issued a new pledge with the reference to broccoli removed, then a reasonable observer would infer that I had been tempted to start eating it.

Ben, Militant Momentum have been advised to follow the example set by Dear Nicola. And her successful tactics are clear as we have seen with the debate (no really) on the 50p tax rate…

So perhaps the approach to Cuckoo-style violence could be

It would not be radical. It would be reckless. It would not be daring. It would be daft….but…I havent ruled it out for the rest of the Parliament…..or have I? Errr…..who cares about means, its the ends that matter

pls note that the misquote above was mis-sourced from The Guardian newspaper and should be treated with the appropriate level of seriousness regarding its integrity and lack of bias 😉

if I had pledged to avoid broccoli, and then issued a new pledge with the reference to broccoli removed, then a reasonable observer would infer that I had been tempted to start eating it.

Then you give a clarification statement explaining what it means so we dont need to infer a **** thing…assuming we want to read it and understand it rather than ignore it and make things up

Its a daft thing as plenty will do as you are doing but its just not true to say they have decided to get violent
We know this because we can read their reason and their rationale

Circular and they have not espoused violence though many will claim they have
No point just repeating ourselves here – no offence meant

there will be a point where a copper gives a lawful order to say unblock the road and it gets ignored, If the coppers then baton charge and use rubber bullets – unlikely obvs exp the later- what do the protesters do then? Defend themself or not?
STILL NOT VIOLENCE* but i can see how it can be spun that way

to be frank this is tripe buried in the past, police tactics now are to kettle the non-violent protestors which is in itself a non violent activity, as soon as they get hungry and need a toilet the umph seems to disappear from the protestors

even violent protests are contained in the main, baton charges are matters of last resort and as for rubber bullets

Guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers say the bullets may be fired only to reduce the risk of loss of life or serious injury to members of the public or the emergency services.

They are also supposed to be used only when all other methods of policing have failed.

and as a matter of interest when were they last used on UK mainland?

in the age of social media/ 24 hour news everybody knows the easiest way to win support is to be on the receiving end of violence be you police or protestor

Circular and they have not espoused violence

no but they have moved their goalposts, the veteran left protestors who like a bit of physical class war have ensured that they will be able to drag Momentum into their world

Unfortunately we’ve heard it all before

the poor innocent protesters were forced to protect themselves from the evil capitalist police.

No doubt telling us that it was the polices illegal* and provocative kettling provoked them

Thats why so many of them arrived at the peaceful protest carrying balaclavas, marbles, cans of spray paint, fireworks etc.

*legal

teamhurtmore – Member

“I really don’t think that the Guardian can be relied to give a fair and unbiased account on anything to do with Corbyn. They have proved beyond doubt not to be Corbyn supporters, nor have they proved to be unbiased against him. The Guardian would much rather his rival won and everything should be seen in that context imo”.

Perhaps they care about the Labour Party

The Guardian has a long history going back many decades of not supporting the Labour Party. As recently as 2010 it urged its readers not to vote Labour and to vote LibDem instead, this coincided with a LibDem lurch to the right as Nick Clegg took over from Charles Kennedy.

Corbyn has shown considerably more commitment to the Labour Party than the Guardian newspaper has, which in some cases was no commitment at all.

Like yourself then Ernie?

Guardian is the paper of the social democrats so will always oppose the democratic socialists.
Got my voting paper today. Owen. You have got to have power otherwise it’s pure masturbation.
And whilst we’re at it, Jeremy surrounding himself with women is as convincing as Charlie Kennedy holding a can of coke. Every left leaning woman I know is horrified by the misogyny of the old left.

You are quite right to say there is no mainstream daily which supports Corbyn’s degree of leftness. This is because not enough people would read it / buy it to make it commercially viable. Labour has for the longest time had “a problem with business” (solved temporarily under Blair) and is now in its worst position re business in my living memory. Newspapers are a business. Its not surprising there isn’t a major one prepared to gloss over all the Corbyn disasters and sing his praises regardles.

Got my voting paper today. Owen. You have got to have power otherwise it’s pure masturbation.

And you think that Owen Smith could be the next UK prime minister? Really? What brought you to that conclusion?

Every left leaning woman I know is horrified by the misogyny of the old left.

I think that might be more a reflection on who you know.

there is no mainstream daily which supports Corbyn’s degree of leftness

How can you say that the Morning Star isn’t mainstream 😉

Probably because it isn’t a mainstream newspaper. It exists purely to fulfill a specific role not shared by other newspapers.

Fairly dumb question btw.

Unfortunately we’ve heard it all before

was it about Hillsborough or about Ian tomlinson ?

Every left leaning woman I know is horrified by the misogyny of the old left.

the old left being the ones who gave is the equal pay act and other misogynistic acts?
Why do folk say such things that are obviously untrue- or at least not reflective of reality?

I may as well say every woman i know hates the tories – if it were true -it not-it would reflect the narrow circle i move in rather than reality

I dont believe that is true for either the circles you move in or reality in general.

You are quite right to say there is no mainstream daily which supports Corbyn’s degree of leftness. This is because not enough people would read it / buy it to make it commercially viable.

Wow you even failed to grasp the argument
The point is all the press are against him and we have research to prove it and the appeal is for them to impartially reflect the news rather than distort it or spin it.

How is the hacked off campaign going jamby? as you are well aware of their power to hurt folk and you campaign to limit their power so don’t defend then just because you loathe the target as its unprincipled

Its not surprising there isn’t a major one prepared to gloss over all the Corbyn disasters and sing his praises regardles

we just want them to be more accurate and balanced than this sort of partisan polemic pish that we have come to expect from you.

the old left being the ones who gave is the equal pay act and other misogynistic acts?
Why do folk say such things that are obviously untrue- or at least not reflective of reality?

Funny innit. Not long ago Corbyn and people like him were denounced for being politically correct and banging on about women’s rights, today they’re being denounced for not being politically correct and not caring about women’s rights.

The transition from one extreme accusation to the opposite extreme accusation appears to have been seamless. So seamless in fact that not many people seem to have noticed. Or perhaps they have.

I don’t know about left-leaning but all the left-wing women I know seem to like Corbyn more than I do, which of course tells you nothing of any interest.

Not long ago Corbyn and people like him were denounced for being politically correct

I certainly would not say Corbyn or Momentum are even remotely politically correct. @gentlerpolitics and all that. Another example from there just now

OH FFS this shit again
Who knew the internet had racist idiots with unpalatable views on certain races – its certainly not something we find on here now is it Jamby and certainly not on Muslims- OH no not at all 🙄

No one wants to defend racism be it odious views we hear on muslims or his on Jews. What if he said Jews dont have to obey the law? The horror eh Jamby the horror

Racist views have no place in society but to pretend they are reflective of Corbyn supporters in general is utter BS I wager there are more right wing racist than left wing ones and i am pretty sure that is easily provable by any cursory analysis of racist parties

WTF do you RW scour the net to get your daily confirmation bias – you think it would be hard for me to find a racist tory? Dead easy – I wouldn’t even need to leave this place but I am not as stupid as suggest its reflective of Tories in general
THM and the CPt and stoner abhor racism as much as I do not something i cannot say of all posters on here who are selective on what sort of racism they dislike.

jambalaya – Member

I certainly would not say Corbyn or Momentum are even remotely politically correct.

Well of course not, that would have been over a year ago. Today they are all women-hating racist thugs. It’s almost as if you’ve understood the point that I was making.

pretty sure he still does not understand it or the irony 😉

ninfan – Member 
Like yourself then Ernie?

😀 many a true word spoken in jest 😀

Ernie I was making my own point that Corbyn and the Corbyn-istas are very different from what they claim to be. His leadership is attracting and empowering supporters and behaviour which is the opposite of his “principals”

6000 Labour members have been reported to the Party for abuse since July when the new guidelines/rukes where put into place. Corbyn’s leadership has seen the racists and sexists emboldened, they don’t want to see him displaced as leader.