Jeremy Corbyn

They want to win the next election?

You obviously have forgotten that the preferred blairite candidate to win the next general election and become the next Labour prime minister was Liz Kendall.

Winning the next general election clearly wasn't the priority.

this one did set fire to a hotel

While I accept that setting light to a hotel sounds far more dramatic iirc he was convicted of setting fire to curtains in a hotel.

[quote=ernie_lynch]

this one did set fire to a hotel

Ok ernie, "won't someone think of the curtains"!
Should I differentiate between the fixtures and the hotel?

On 22 September 2005, Lord Watson was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment. Sheriff Kathrine Mackie justified the sentence, stating that there was both "[b]a significant risk of re-offending[/b]"

Where should he have started the fire to make the original comment true?

Well to make the original comment true he would have had to set the hotel on fire.

If in a drunken stupor I throw a glass in a hotel bar and smash it, I would have smash a glass in a hotel bar. I would not have 'smashed up a hotel' even if smashing up a hotel starts by breaking the first glass.

athgray used the 'set fire to a hotel' to make the offence sound more dramatic and more serious, I accept that. I was merely pointing out that as I recalled it he was convicted for setting the curtain alight.

I agree scotroutes. IMO setting fire to the curtains in a hotel equates to setting fire to the hotel. Tell the queen or the rectors and students of the Glasgow School of Art about curtains.

Setting fire to a hotel??
Politics is the new rock and roll 😉
That should get the kids interested.

"a significant risk of re-offending"

Ah. Maybe JC has a plan.....

Maybe there was a significant risk of re-offending because he had a drink problem, I don't know. Maybe he is now teetotal (it was 10 years ago) I don't know.

And frankly as long as he doesn't go around setting light to curtains now I don't care. There are much more important issues to deal with.

I have no problem with an ex-offender being in the shadow cabinet, in fact I quite like the idea. As long as its not linked to dodgy dealings, child abuse, and other issues which cast very serious doubts on the character of an individual.

ernie. I approve of JC. I would like to think he can muster a few good MPs for his cabinet of people against child abuse and dodgy arms dealing that don't involve brining in people convicted of setting fire to hotel curtains. FWIW Tom Watsons antics look like the the desperate attempts of a hopeless drunk to find a quiete corner in the hostel to have a piss!

ernie_lynch - Member
I suspect epicyclo thinks that Corbyn should ignore the House of Lords and pretend that that part of our bicameral legislature doesn't exist.

No, I think representatives should be accountable to the electorate.

ernie. I approve of JC.

So do I, I trust his judgement more than I do the judgement of most other MPs. I know nothing about Mike Watson, if Corbyn has decided that today he is suitable for a post in the shadow cabinet, whatever occurred 10 years ago, then I accept his judgement on the matter.

If I have doubts concerning Corbyn then they are with regards to much more important issues. I'm not particularly comfortable with Corbyn's repeated declarations that he's not a 'deficit denier' which I feel lends credibility to the current Tory/right-wing narrative - remember the Tories have been deficit deniers for most of the period they've been in government since WW2, it's only now that they want to use it as a tool to attack the welfare state (while giving tax breaks to the very wealthiest in society) that the Tories want to talk about deficits, before that it was a non-issue.

I'm also uncomfortable with regards to Corbyn not even talking about a special party conference to re-democratize the party. Remember that despite having the support of 60% of those who voted in the leadership election Corbyn only got onto the ballot paper in the final minutes before nominations closed because the right-wing antidemocratic PLP elite screwed up, they will never make that mistake again. Corbyn hasn't done or suggested anything to reduce the enormous power they have to thwart the democratic wishes of the party.

No, I think representatives should be accountable to the electorate.

So you think Corbyn should instead reform or abolish the House of Lords, despite the fact that he is only leader of the opposition ?

I can't think of any party leader more likely to reform or abolish the House of Lords than Corbyn. To achieve that though he has to be the prime minister, in the meantime he has to accept our legislature as it exists.

They might call him JC but he can't work miracles.

konabunny - Member
...Some terrorists turned to terrorism because they don't have any popular legitimacy and/or because they're simply scumbags.

And some because they want their country back.
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

I'm not sure which people you are describing when you say "they want their country back". Perhaps you're referring to the people who blow up abortion clinics or throw acid in the faces of children. They're people who have no popular legitimacy and are scumbags. They are people that want peace on their terms. Is that who you were referring to? Perhaps you could be more specific about who are the terrorists that just "want their country back".

time reading public and private reports and opinion pieces on GEO-politics and finance than do most (all ?) here not least as that's part of what I am paid to do so spend a lot of time every day doing just that

To my mind, it makes them both very unconvincing.

Oh come on,who hasn't set fire to a building after a night out? I would go and watch United( Dundee) at the time because my mate had two hospitality passes. Being minks we would rock up at 11.31 am, He would be in the free bar necking spirits already. Clearly had a drink problem which was dramatically announced to the papers. FWIW he is supposed to have set the fires after he was refused more drink,now that he doesn't drink,I am fairly confident he is unlikely to behave in a similar way. But Corbyn could appoint Johnny Wilkinson to his cabinet and the right would smear him.

Re: Wilkinson, I heard he "snubbed" the rugby to do a constituency surgery. This is an outrage! 😉

ernie_lynch - Member
...So you think Corbyn should instead reform or abolish the House of Lords, despite the fact that he is only leader of the opposition ?...

He can make a start by not appointing them to positions of power and influence.

konabunny - Member
"One man's terrorist is another man's X" is a remarkably lazy thing to say.
I'm not sure which people you are describing when you say "they want their country back". Perhaps you're referring to the people who blow up abortion clinics or throw acid in the faces of children...

Now you're hoping I'll give an example. No, all forms of war are dirty, and generally the terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war where they kill in the tens (horribly) while the other dominant side kills thousands (or hundreds of thousands) but that's not horrible because gets glossed over by a compliant media peddling govt propaganda.

Surely you can think of a recent example of that?

Whilst setting fire to some curtains in a refusal to serve booze seems like a scene out of Withnail and I the reality is that
1) we have all done ridiculous and stupid things when pissed. Does anyone think the Cabinet Bullingdon boys have not done things that they would prefer to not get into the public arena perhaps with cocaine and prostitutes if rumours are to be believed.

2) we want our politicians to bemore like real people

Therefore when this happens dont moan about it but accept that they, like us all , are mixed bag of strength, weaknesses and errors of judgement in the past.

I do like, and look forward to, KB inputs to the forum

EDIT:

He can make a start by not appointing them to positions of power and influence.

Its rather hard for the opposition leader to not pick a Leader of the Lords opposition who is not a Lord

The system of govt means that it can be easier to affect change of policy and the actuality of the wording in that chamber than in the commons.
he has no real choice if he wants to hold them to account.

Corbyn will probably announce this week that he's planning to nationalise the IRA.

Now you're hoping I'll give an example.

Perhaps you could be more specific about who are the terrorists that just "want their country back".

What does "terrorist" actually mean, beyond "bloke on the other side"?

Someone who uses violence/murder/death and terror, as opposed to direct action or democratic processes, to achieve a political goal

Like, a soldier, then?

OED definition is:

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

This is different from a solider who has to abide by certain rules and had certain rights.

There are rules that you have to follow to make war 'official' which is why all soldiers aren't charged with dozens of counts of murder when they get back. Terrorists don't follow them (or can't).

Surely you must know this?

You win you're a freedom fighter, you lose you're a terrorist was what I always thought the official definition was.

There are rules that you have to follow to make war 'official' which is why all soldiers aren't charged with dozens of counts of murder when they get back. Terrorists don't follow them (or can't).

Really? Who made up these rules? Where were they agreed on?

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Who is the one who "authorizes" the violence and intimidation? Where was the job advertised?

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Well that explains why the IDF isn't classed as terrorist - they are officially authorized by the Israelis. I had always wondered.

The IRA missed a trick by not getting someone to 'officially authorize' them eh?

Like, a soldier, then?

A bit like a soldier, but not in uniform, or a standing army, or serving a state, or seeking to hold territory.

Hmm. Seems that, for example, Hamas and Hezbullah fit that definition quite well.So, actually, quite similar after all.

I'm fairly sure that some organisations which are classed as terrorist by the UK government have uniforms, have combatants with no other jobs, hold territory, and engage in civil administration. So a bit like a soldier then.

I'm fairly sure that some organisations which are classed as terrorist by the UK government have uniforms, have combatants with no other jobs, hold territory, and engage in civil administration. So a bit like a soldier then.

Whereas, for example, the French Resistance did not meet any of those criteria.

Who made up these rules? Where were they agreed on?

Google not working for you? This is all history, afaik.

Or are you trying obliquely to make a point? If so, please get on with it 🙂

Hamas and Hezbullah fit that definition quite well.

I'm not sure about Hezbullah but the UK government does not class Hamas as terrorist, it is perfectly legal in the UK to be a member of Hamas. However the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades which has close links with Hamas is classed a terrorist by the UK government.

To say that Hamas is classed as terrorist is as factually incorrect as claiming that Sinn Fein is.

Google not working for you? This is all history, afaik.

Really? I must have missed that lesson. Help me out.

Or are you just making stuff up?

To say that Hamas is classed as terrorist is as factually incorrect as claiming that Sinn Fein is.

I don't doubt it, but it is classed as "terrorist" by a number of bodies including the EU.

Whereas, for example, the French Resistance did not meet any of those criteria.

Which is why they were terrorists.

And enemies of the Third Reich ! Gott im Himmel ! Schweinhunds !

If you look at the eu as an occupying force, as no doubt tens of millions of people across the world do, then it can make it incredibly hard to see a difference between the French resistance in WW2 and many so-called terrorist organisations

French resistance would have been considered terrorists if caught by the Nazis. Unlike a British soldier in uniform who would have been sent to a POW camp.

The SOE in WW2 were setup based on terrorist lines and were all aware of having no rights of captured on a mission. Infact they were required to sign that they understood that and the UK government would deny they were theirs.

Historically the rules were 'gentlemans agreements' between European powers, later on coded into things like the Geneva convention.

So when it suited them, the British government sanctioned acts outside the rules of engagement. That would make them state sponsored and sanctioned acts of terrorism. Which is quite embarrassing for Jeremy Corbyn, as I saw him on television the other day having a discussion with the leader of her majesty's government, he really is friends with terrorists.

A bit like drone assassination in a country in which you are supposedly not at war?

In WW2 yes at Churchill's request. SOE was shut down afterwards. It's what Flemming based James Bond on. SOE is considered controversial with historians as a result of being outside of normal warfare rules.

There's a long history of making words more emotive than they actually are. Like terrorist, it's largely used to demonize and promote a particular course of action.

terrorist
"a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

That covers a wide range of actions, that largely aren't classed as terrorism by the likes of our media.

It's pretty simple, don't rely on basising your opinion based on the emotive use of language by the media. Labels are irrelevant. Ignore the emotions, and look at the history and actions and decide for yourself.

Terrorism is a widely used tactic and has been for a long long time. It's not always called that though.