Jeremy Corbyn

Didn't Cameron make and distribute leaflets and posters calling for Nelson Mandela's hanging?

The Tories very happily proclaimed the ANC a terrorist organisation, while cosying up with the oppressive white supremacist ruling regime. But then again, profit before humanity is the Tory battle cry.

Poster by the Federation of Conservative Students at the time....

[img] [/img]

They were as charming back then as they are now

yunki - Member

Didn't Cameron make and distribute leaflets and posters calling for Nelson Mandela's hanging?

Posted 4 minutes ago #Report-Post

It is hard to prove he was a member of the fed of conservative students that did. It has often been suggested he moved in the same circles though.

It is hard to prove he was a member of the fed of conservative students that did. It has often been suggested he moved in the same circles though.

Everything I have read suggests he didn't get involved in student politics while at university so I think it is pretty unlikely.

They were as charming back then as they are now

Who? The ANC terrorists?

[img] [/img]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing

The Tories very happily proclaimed the ANC a terrorist organisation

Yep, Thatcher branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist while she threw lifelines to the racist Apartheid regime.

During precisely the same time Jeremy Corbyn took a very different position.

[img] [/img]

However today the Tory press denounce Corbyn as a racist :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11821264/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-be-cheered-by-racists-and-terrorists.html ]Jeremy Corbyn will be cheered by racists and terrorists[/url]

And of course the Tories who called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged aren't racists, perish the thought.

[img] [/img]

Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate, that graph by Ernie of deficits and budget surpluses is a perfect illustration, the Tories were rattling along nicely between '92-'97 with a rare budget surplus and things were genuinely looking good....so everybody voted them out and put nu-Labour in instead!....genius.

Seems everybody brought into the idea of 'slimey' Tories and based their voting on wanting rid of scandalous headlines etc rather than ensuring continued economic growth....Blair and Brown must've thought it was Christmas when they came to power in 1997 following 5 years of economic growth under the rival party!

Has an electorate ever been so successfully brainwashed as they were in '97?!....Blair, Mandelson etc were quite the tricksters....also helped along by Murdoch's press switching allegiance.

You should have to sit some kind of exam before being allowed to vote!

Some very daming words from the UK's Jewish community leaders too (reporting in the Guardian), I do wonder what Luciana Berger was thinking in accepting a Shadow Cabinet role.

accepting money from Hamas to visit Gaza, thus could well be deemed in contravention of anti-terrorism laws.

C'mon Ernie, we all know why Comrade Corbyn was really so committed to Mandela's cause don't we?

[img] [/img]

You stay classy ninfan

Seems everybody brought into the idea of 'slimey' Tories and based their voting on wanting rid of scandalous headlines etc rather than ensuring continued economic growth

I think it was the fact that they'd famously planted in everyones mind the vision of David Mellor shagging while wearing only a Chelsea kit. For that alone, they had to go

Didn't that turn out to be entirely made up by celebrity paedophile Max Clifford?

Alright then... even if it was, John Major was boffing Edwina Curry in the cabinet office...

[img] [/img]

.....[i]because it's no surprise that Lefty's love him and Tories hate him.[/i]

The Torys don't hate him....most of em had never even heard of him before this leadership election. Currently (I'd suggest), they are viewing him with the interest of a Entomologist in a rare bug!

Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate, that graph by Ernie of deficits and budget surpluses is a perfect illustration, the Tories were rattling along nicely between '92-'97 with a rare budget surplus and things were genuinely looking good....so everybody voted them out and put nu-Labour in instead!....genius.

Seems everybody brought into the idea of 'slimey' Tories and based their voting on wanting rid of scandalous headlines etc rather than ensuring continued economic growth....Blair and Brown must've thought it was Christmas when they came to power in 1997 following 5 years of economic growth under the rival party!

Has an electorate ever been so successfully brainwashed as they were in '97?!....Blair, Mandelson etc were quite the tricksters....also helped along by Murdoch's press switching allegiance.

You should have to sit some kind of exam before being allowed to vote!

or even lessons in graph reading, those surplus years are 98/99,99/00 and 00/01.

Associating with terrorists, how despicable...

[img] [/img]

One wonders if Sri Lankan maid Rizana Nafeek saw the great wisdom of Abdullah when she was dragged from a van by Saudi soldiers last year and executed publicly by a sword-wielding man in a white robe, as crowds looked on in pleasure. She was sentenced to death at the age of 17 in 2007 after her employers claimed she was responsible for the death of their child, that she was taking care of as part of her duties as a housemaid. A video posted online shows the gruesome ceremony, the result of the great wisdom Western leaders showed such fawning appreciation for.

Did Burmese maid Layla Bint Abdul Mutaleb Bassim share the “modern” vision of the king as she was dragged through the streets and then beheaded in public while being held by four soldiers on January 18 of this year? She plead for her life and declared her innocence. It is tradition in Saudi Arabia’s injustice system that executioners ask those they kill for forgiveness prior to beheading them. But the young Bassim shouted in the street, blindfolded and with her arms tied behind her back: “haram [forbidden], haram, haram, I did not kill, I do not forgive you, this is an injustice.” And then the sword of modernity, of progress, of “warm and genuine friendship,” fell on her neck – three times, as the executioner could not kill her in one stroke. The man who filmed the gruesome legal murder of Bassim was arrested.

And for the dozens of other victims of such executions, many of them young foreign maids, why don’t the flags fly at half-mast in London? In other places in Saudi Arabia there are public canings. Raif Badawi was whipped in public 50 times on January 9 for “insulting religion”; he critiqued Saudi religious clerics on his blog. His 50 lashes were part of a 10-year sentence including 1,000 lashes, to be administered in 50 sessions over 20 weeks. These public whippings were a part of what those like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Abdullah’s “important voice [which] left a lasting impact on his country... a guiding force.”

Modi was in an “hour of grief” for the dead king.

Modi is right, in a sense. The Saudi king indeed left a “lasting impact”: bloodstained streets and scarred backs. He made a lasting impact on thousands of poor people from families throughout Asia, such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, India and Burma, whose loved ones who were beheaded after working as semi-enslaved housekeepers in the kingdom. When the Times said Abdullah “re-shaped” Saudi Arabia, it was correct; decapitating people is re-shaping them indeed.

THERE ARE an estimated 9 million foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. Many of them are young women brought over as “maids.” Thousands flee abusive employers every month to their embassies or safe houses. Usually their passports have been confiscated and they have few options. One Sri Lankan maid told an embassy employee, “After three months of work I asked madam [my employer] for my salary and she started to beat me with iron bars and wooden sticks... she would take a hot iron and burn me or heat up a knife and put it on my body... she threatened to take me to a police station and have me arrested.” In Saudi Arabia, you can be executed for false accusations like this.

The great “modernizer” for whom leaders waxed lyrical also did “great service” for gay men. In July 2014 a gay man was sentenced to three years and 450 lashes in Saudi Arabia for the crime of using Twitter to arrange dates with other men.

But the homosexual men being lashed for using satanic Twitter are only one part of the modernization pie. Another part is the women like the “girl from Qatif,” who was gang-raped in 2006 by men who filmed the rape. Because they did her the “service” of filming it she wasn’t stoned for “adultery” but rather was mercifully given 200 lashes for “being alone with a man” and sentenced to six months in prison.

The benevolent “modernising” king pardoned the girl after international criticism, but this left many Saudi reformers non-plussed who noted that other victims of the legal system “deserve a better process for everyone in the country to get their rights” and not be whipped for being raped.

When the world leaders line up to console Saudi Arabia in a hagiographic smorgasbord we should remember who they didn’t console. They didn’t console the hundreds of young women executed in public. They didn’t console the homosexuals and gang-rape victims being lashed and imprisoned. They didn’t console any of the millions of house-slaves in the kingdom.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/How-did-Saudi-King-Abdullah-become-a-world-hero-388919

or even lessons in graph reading, those surplus years are 98/99,99/00 and 00/01.

Indeed, it's strange that someone who dismisses "the stupidity of the electorate" should have failed to have noticed that the UK went into budgetary surplus in 98 not 92.

.

Blair and Brown must've thought it was Christmas when they came to power in 1997 following 5 years of economic growth under the rival party!

And EIGHT years of deficit under the Tories.

More simply:

1. (all) governments love to spend more than they earn - yippee bring forward consumption and delay payment - a sure winner

2. Keynesian economics RIP - so much for counter-cyclical management of aggregate demand

yippee bring forward consumption and delay payment - a sure winner

Gosh THM, next you'll be talking about credit controls. How terribly 'Old Labour' of you.

I have a masters degree in political communication and I'm 4 weeks away from submitting my PhD thesis on media theory so I think I know at least a little bit about how dodgy the media are, but I'm still utterly shocked at how the press (all of them, left, right, centre, whatever) have reacted to Corbyn's popularity.

The Independent's coverage doesn't shock me that much, since its now just a mouthpiece for its dodgy Russian oligarch owner, but the utter rubbish and lies being printed by the supposedly left wing Guardian / Observer, short of "Corbyn ate my hamster!!!!!" makes one realise that the upper echelons of society are terrified of what he represents.

So what if he has met up with some nefarious types in the past, are we not forgetting.....

[img] [/img]

Tony Bliar with Gaddhafi

[img] [/img]

Thatcher with the Chilean dictator General Pinochet

[img] [/img]

US Senator and one time presidential hopeful John McCain with ISIS leaders.

I don't agree with quite a few of Corbyn's policies, and he has a hell of a job on to prove his worth, but its good to finally have an opposition party that actually opposes for a change.

@devash, Corbyn is popular with existing Labour voters (and with the likely 10,000's of infiltrators who paid £3 to vote for him) but he is not popular with those swing voters the Labour Party need and the press including the left leaning BBC and Guardian fully recognise this, I am an active meme r of Hacked Off and have many critism of the UK press but Corbyn and his sidekicks are too easy a target for critism.

Unless he can convince us that he has some decent policies during the next year or two.

However, do you really think the situation would be any better under Burnham?

Corbyn is very popular with swing voters, and the pathetic lies and attacks are strengthening his support.

left leaning BBC

😆 😆 😆 😆

but he is not popular with those swing voters the Labour Party need

I think its a bit early in the day to be asserting that. Based on what?

The same press who are all telling us Corbyn can't win were confidently telling us in May, right the way up until the polls closing, that Dave couldn't possibly win a majority. So what do they know?

10,000's of infiltrators

I realise that because you've said it, it's now a fact in the jambaverse but hasn't it been shown previously that this kind of figure is a gross overestimation?

but the utter rubbish and lies being printed by the supposedly left wing Guardian / Observer, short of "Corbyn ate my hamster!!!!!" makes one realise that the upper echelons of society are terrified of what he represents.

If you have a masters degree in political communication and are 4 weeks away from submitting your PhD thesis on media theory then I'm very surprised that you are surprised by the Guardian / Observer ....... WTF did you expect ?

When push comes to shove the Guardian's supposedly left-wing credentials have always gone out of the window.

Five years ago the Guardian was urging its readers to vote LibDem after the LibDems had lurched significantly to the right under Nick Clegg's leadership.

Presumably the LibDems were too left-wing under Charles Kennedy for the Guardian when it was backing the warmonger and personal friend of George Bush Tony Blair.

It's fairly clear to me that the Guardian didn't support him because they think he'll damage Labour's electability, NOT because they don't agree with his policies. They probably do.

Nick Clegg was media inspired (the debates) and destroyed

Jezza likewise - it fills papers. Simple.

A First please?

the Guardian didn't support him because they think he'll damage Labour's electability, NOT because they don't agree with his policies. They probably do.

So let me get this right......the Guardian supports policies which they think would make Labour unelectable, that's why they don't support Corbyn ?

Have you really thought this through ?

Who'd have thunk it eh? Polly Toynbee, et al, in their £3 million north London townhouses, with their 2nd homes in Tuscany, where they email their copy in from, aren't actually that left wing?

Blimey! 😯

Corbyn is popular with existing Labour voters (and with the likely 10,000's of infiltrators who paid £3 to vote for him) but he is not popular with those swing voters the Labour Party need

I'm a swing voter, and he's popular with me.

I'm a swing voter too. Until last Saturday I hadn't supported Labour for 20 years. I'm now a Labour supporter because of Corbyn.

I'm a swing voter, and he's popular with me.

+1

I'm a swinger and he's popular with me

I'm a swing voter, and if Labour have any chance of winning my seat I'd vote for them now, pretty much a 100% reversal on the last election for me where as soon as there was a chance of anyone but Labour winning I jumped.

I'm still utterly shocked at how the press (all of them, left, right, centre, whatever) have reacted to Corbyn's popularity.

Like EL I am stunned you are stunned, most political commentators are centred around the middle ground (there are a few exceptions on the Guardian, Milne, Jones etc.), so it hardly surprising they aren't too keen on Corbyn who has been on the left of the spectrum represented in the HOC throughout his career. The most vitriolic attacks are coming from Blairites (see EL's earlier post of Hodges link in DT).

EL, NW, Ransos, BillMC and Grum

The Tories are devasted to lose your votes.

I realise that because you've said it, it's now a fact in the jambaverse but hasn't it been shown previously that this kind of figure is a gross overestimation?

Hilarious CBiL

Genuinely funny mefty!!

Unless he can convince us that he has some decent policies during the next year or two.

While we are on this subject, can anyone give me an idea when we can expect Cameron to come up with some decent policies? Or even one?

You do realise that, as a mini-me of thm, jamba is obligated to post at least one ludicrous fantasy per day and that that fantasy should be posted as unarguable fact?

That is not actually true JY. They are easy to tell apart. THM posts shite about Scotland while Jamba posts shite about Greece.

I don't even like politics, and I've become vaguely interested over the last month. As someone said, it might be nice to see an opposition that actually opposes...

EL, NW, Ransos, BillMC and Grum

The Tories are devasted to lose your votes.

That's the misconception - that Labour needs to win Tory votes to win the next general election. Labour just needs to win back votes from the Greens, the SNP, UKIP, and all those that have given up voting, to win the next general election. And Corbyn is appealing [i]precisely[/i] to those voters/potential voters.

As an example Croydon Central is a key marginal which Labour needs to win to form the next government, the Tories won it with a majority of 165. The UKIP vote was 4,810 if a quarter of that goes to Labour they've won, the Green vote was 1,454 if half of that goes to Labour they've won. Turnout was 68%, if Corbyn energizes and motivates a few disillusioned former Labour voters to get out and vote they've won.

Of course some people will be put off voting Labour because of Corbyn, that goes without saying, the question no one yet knows the answer to is how many more will be attracted to Labour.

Bearing in mind his completely unpredicted and overwhelming popularity among Labour Party members and supporters it would be foolish to say with any certainty the likely outcome.

It's also important to remember the huge increase in Labour Party membership due to Corbyn. Don't ever underestimate the importance of troops on the ground in key marginals - they can easily tip the result.

The Labour Party now has more potential activists and higher morale than it's had for a very long time. I have seen the effect on an election result that intensive campaigning can have.

Mefty: : )

I suspect that if all the Labour voters who are against Corbyn because they think he's unelectable actually remembered their core beliefs and voted for him, he'd win.

Corbyn's big asset is that he really does give a shit, and the evidence has been there for 30 years.

@dd I am very glad there was a peace signed in Ireland, why on earth would you try to represent otherwise, I've too may friends who've shared stories with me about their lives in the North during the troubles, Corbyn and McDonald contributed ZERO to this process, what they did is classic looney protest politics. They are no Mo Molam's, they where outsiders getting to get noticed and giving explicit and visible support to terrorism. IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done.

@ernie Corbyn cannot ignore the Labour focus groups who have studied Labours election loss. He cannot ignore the deficit.

He cannot ignore the deficit.

Can you point out where he's said he's going to ignore the deficit or is just more smearing?

I've too may friends who've shared stories with me about their lives in the North during the troubles

I've heard you once travelled through Belfast airport.

The honeymoon period is still in full swing. So far only principles have been put forward. It's very difficult to argue against principles as they are polarised, the real debates will happen when the policies come percolating through. It's a bit more difficult in the real world to apply principles. There are so many things outside of our control that we can't influence. That's where Corbin will have get out of cloud cuckoo land and face reality. Old labour policies have been proved not to work on many occasions o I'm looking forward to something different being proposed. I'm bracing myself for disappointment. I predict the same old nonsense - happy to be proved wrong though.

Old labour policies have been proved not to work on many occasions

Old Labour policies were surprisingly like Old Tory policies. They brought the welfare state, higher wages, low unemployment, less inequality, and the biggest housing programme ever.

New Labour/New Tory/Neoliberalism promises the dismantling of the welfare state, lower wages, higher unemployment, more inequality, and a growing housing crises.

IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done

FFS the IRA declared a cease fire in 1994
Peace processed started in the 90's under John Major culminating in the agreement in Belfast on Good Friday, 10 April 1998:

9/11 - September the 11 th 2001

This should be a really fascinating explanation to keep your 100 %

It is things like this tham make me struggle to see whether this is satire or your actual views but the facts dont really stack up with what you are saying

They literally happened in different millennia

he is not popular with those swing voters the Labour Party need

I think others have addressed why this statement is problematic but just a final thought. I think pollsters greatly overestimate the numbers of supposed 'swing' voters and their influence.

I think the real goldmine are those disenfranchised voters and the young who don't bother voting. I think Labour need to invest in this demographic rather than chase swing voters in the home counties.

Corbyn himself is no great leader, but what he represents and what he is actively pushing for is what is exciting about the resurgent Labour movement. People are getting interested in politics again.

I'm more interested in this Junkyard :

It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done

According to jambalaya the only thing which kept the IRA going was support from the US. The moment the US stopped supporting the IRA they had to give up.

Now that's not an argument you hear very often.

Corbyn himself is no great leader, but what he represents and what he is actively pushing for is what is exciting about the resurgent Labour movement. People are getting interested in politics again.

This is what a lot of anti-Corbyn labour people are still not getting. They're thinking of this in the same old media management, spin doctoring, third way, say nothing controversial way. If that worked Miliband would now be PM, and the SNP would still be a marginal party. The tragedy is that they, and a lot of labour MPs probably agree with most of what he's saying but are still so shackled by new labour thinking that they can't bring themselves to take the leap faith. Either that or they are genuinely in the wrong party in which case they need to have a think.

jambalaya - Member

IMO the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11. It ended all funding from the US and the IRA realised the terrorist narrative was done.

One of your most mental opinions, well done.

satchm00 - Member

I wonder if the appointment of Jeremy has effectively killed off the Lib Dems.

You can't kill that which does not live. There might be an opportunity here but the lib dems seem totally uninterested in actually getting up off the floor, their only substantial action since the election has been to effusively support Alistair Carmichael 😆

Another thread, more of the same from the usual abusive individuals. Try playing the ball, not the man. You can easily and politely refute Jambalaya's theory (which isn't unreasonable) without resorting to a one sided slanging match.

You can easily and politely refute Jambalaya's theory

Bin dun.

Doesn't work.

which isn't unreasonable

Care to make an argument for?

I am an active member of Hacked Off and have many critism of the UK press

Funniest post of the week right there. 😀

bainbrge - Member
Another thread, more of the same from the usual abusive individuals.

If i had a second login for my own amusement and general trollage, I would post up unflattering facsimilies of the flannel posted by bighitters on the opposite end of the pitch. C'mon DD, is it you?

Right....so you don't like his opinions, you tried debating them but didn't convince him to change, hence you reverted to abuse.

Here's a considered debating point re the 9/11 theory: Good Friday Agreement fragile, elements of PIRA and associates only partially bought into the end of the armed struggle, potential for conflict to restart. Support from certain sections of American population for the struggle well known and documented. Easier for PIRA to revert to violence with financial and moral support from this group. 9/11 permanently changes the views of Americans in relation to terrorism (once romantic struggle, now horrifying tragedy in their back yard). US support dries up, calculus for PIRA changes, and resumption of armed struggle now veery unlikely.

Ergo, contributory factor, if not single most important reason for continued peace.

Happy to be contradicted.

Have we done Corbyn appointing a fire-raising peer to Labour's front bench?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13770325.Jeremy_Corbyn_appoints_disgraced_peer_Lord_Mike__Watson_to_Labour_frontbench/

Hmm...

As an example Croydon Central is a key marginal which Labour needs to win to form the next government, the Tories won it with a majority of 165. The UKIP vote was 4,810 if a quarter of that goes to Labour they've won, the Green vote was 1,454 if half of that goes to Labour they've won. Turnout was 68%, if Corbyn energizes and motivates a few disillusioned former Labour voters to get out and vote they've won.

However, we both know that things aren't that simple - the effect of a left wing nutter (TM) leading the Labour party is just as likely to galvanise support on the right as it is to motivate support on the left - your own example of UKIP being the perfect on, that even if your Corbyn led Labour party pulled back 1/4 of the UKIP voters, they risk being so much of an anethema/threat to the right wing loons that they rally back the rest of the UKIP nutters into the warm bosom the Tory party - just as happened with the whole 'Labour/SNP coalition' threat.

every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

bainbrge - Member
Teamhurtmore-Member

Hmm...

According to R4 those 30% or so disillusioned voters that didn't turn out at the last General Election are probably more likely to be Labour voters....the problem is they are pretty much all from current Labour seats so wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the GE result if all of them had come out and voted labour. You can't win a set twice.

For Labour to win they need to win back their seats in Scotland and overturn the tories in the seats they already have.

I liked the first line of your link bencooper :

[i]"JEREMY Corbyn has risked serious controversy after...."[/i]

Well I never, Corbyn has risked serious controversy, who would have thought it ?

It's almost as if he doesn't want to play safe.

And almost as shocking as a "drunken Scotsman sets light to curtains" headline.

I dunno ......... *sighs*

According to jambalaya the only thing which kept the IRA going was support from the US. The moment the US stopped supporting the IRA they had to give up.

To be fair the open and generous donating to the IRA in places like Boston and New York did reportedly come to an abrupt end following 9/11.
I thought it was generally accepted that 9/11 dismissed any romantic notions of IRA terrorism the yanks had harbored until then, once they'd experienced terrorism on their own doorstep openly supporting the IRA wasn't viewed in quite the same way....I'm well aware the peace process was under way well before 9/11 though.

I think most people might consider it rather fanciful to claim that the IRA were no longer able to carry on killing people once funding from the US ceased.

Although I know nothing with regards to details of the Provos revenue I doubt that organised criminals such as the IRA were particularly dependent on charity from Boston and New York.

And btw the US had experienced terrorism before 9/11.

it was forcing the IRA to decommission it's arms not a fragile good friday agreement and it wasn't fund raising that forced their hand it was good ol' strong arm tactics from the US state department after a bungled weapons training trip to colombia. Interesting [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/28/northernireland.colombia ]article in the grauniad[/url], 9/11 was quite germane I guess.

The claim wasn't that events associated with 9/11 helped the peace process, it was, quote : "[i]the single biggest factor in the peace was 9-11[/i]"

As has already been pointed out the Good Friday Agreement was 3 years before 9/11.

If you are looking for 'the single biggest factor in the peace process' then I would suggest that it was when both sides finally accepted that there could be no military solution, and the British government finally accepted that it had to talk to Sinn Fein. What Corbyn had been saying for years.

And I wouldn't overstate the importance of support in the US for the IRA. While it is debatable how much of Noraid funds actually went to buying arms what isn't debatable imo is the importance of Libyan support. When the Eksund was intercepted she was carrying 1,000 AK-47 machine guns, a million rounds of ammunition, more than 50 ground-to-air missiles, and 2 tons of Semtex, all from Libya. Plenty of other shipments got through. Semtex was the IRA's most powerful weapon, without it Enniskillen wouldn't have happened, it caused more deaths than anything else. It all came from Libya, none came from Boston.

I've too may friends who've shared stories with me about their lives in the North during the troubles

Well according to latest reports Sinn Fein / ira are back on the
Streets murdering/assassinating people at will...I do wonder what
Fantasy land people like darsy and lynch inhabit
Corbin/McDonnell have associated themselves/ sympathised with
An organisation that waged a campaign of terror over the UK
Murdering, bombing and mutilating innocent British citizens,
The list is endless .... Birmingham pub bombings, Manchester bombings.. Etc
Sinn Fein / Ira murdered and maimed indiscriminately
And we now have a leader of the Labour Party that is sympathetic
To the republican Irish scum that tried to blow us up?
Go @@@@ ya self Corbin

oh dear hand wringing right whingers [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-wont-stop-until-everyone-in-britain-is-offended-10506322.html ]mark steel in the independent[/url]

Murdering, bombing and mutilating innocent British citizens

Ah yes, it only matters when it's British citizens doesn't it.

Can someone fetch bloodynora a vacuum cleaner? He seems to have a fanny absolutely chock full of sand. 😆

nd we now have a leader of the Labour Party that is sympathetic
To the republican Irish scum that tried to blow us up?

Hang on - run that by me again? The evidence for Corbyn being pro IRA is a quip from his mate? Who was at the time trying to stop the IRA ?

o be fair the open and generous donating to the IRA in places like Boston and New York did reportedly come

The haters can hate all they like just look at the timing and the speed of progress post 9-11. You guys can be as abrupt and aggressive as you like, it's just a sign of weakness. That's why make zero effort to engage in the personal abuse and have ever reported a post, why bother when I'm perfectly happy to see you continue with it.

Back I topic I'm delighted Corbyn won and I didn't even have to spend £3 to vote for him. His leadership is going to lurch from one trains smash to another. I mean a shadow chancellor who is on record as saying Bobby Sands should be reconised for his contributions to the peace process, electoral poison.

More smears. More disinformation.

A bit unnecessary imo DD. Bloodynora is entitled to his opinion. If you don't agree then why not challenge or else just simply ignore.

Hang on - run that by me again? The evidence for Corbyn being pro IRA is a quip from his mate? Who was at the time trying to stop the IRA ?

You guys are going to have to have some better arguments regarding Corbyn's relationships with terrorists to make to voters in the key marginals than what I've seen here. You can take your lead from the Labour Party as they will be working on hard over the coming weeks.