It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: gortex
Got to point out that I am posting this after only reading the OP, but.....
Sorry mate, I can not share your enthusiasm.
I feel the party political system has outlived its fit for purpose and this is simply further evidence of it.
Yet I am a realist and recognise that whilst we have the current system it is entirely necessary to engage with it.
I am a naturally 'leftist' leaning individual on most subjects.
My family are all 'traditional Labour voters' and I have voted Labour on the vast majority of my visits to the voting booth.
I very much doubt I could ever bring myself to vote for the Tories, or for that matter the LibDems after their sell out to the Conservatives.
But I will never, ever support or vote for a party led by a man who expresses support for murdering, IRA scum.
Or a man who seems to have a loathing for our own Armed Services and for many basic aspects of British heritage and culture.
I accept that I probably know less about the man than many on here.
But what I do know leads me to think that he stands for and represents everything I despise about the champagne socialists that seem to be so prevalent within the Labour Party - they neither know nor care about the genuine cares and concerns of the vast majority of the ordinary British population and have an arrogance and smugness that is at least as equal to that of Cameron and his set of twats.
Given the options I have a genuine and deep rooted fear for the future of this country.
Now to read the rest of the thread.
Corbyn is a pacifist so doesn't support violence.
He does however understand that there is always two sides to every story, and to make peace you have to talk and make an effort to understand the cause of your opponent's actions.
I am not sure where the idea of his loathing for armed services stems from but I am pretty sure it's the orders from the top he is in disagreement with rather than the people who make up the armed services.
If you don't mind me asking, what are the concerns you are worried Corbyn doesn't know/care about?
It emerged, during that time, that paedophiles had been able to systematically rape and sexually abuse scores of vulnerable boys and girls in the borough throughout the Seventies and Eighties, infiltrating all 12 of its children’s homes in the process.
The Labour-run council had, meanwhile, both facilitated the abuse by employing known paedophiles and brazenly attempted to cover it up, shredding crucial documents and dismissing subsequent media reports about the scandal as ‘gutter journalism’.
Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some, including Liz Davies and Neville Mighty, received death threats.
Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.
As this revolting saga unfolded, Davies and her colleagues expected Corbyn to begin demanding that something be done about it.
He was, after all, an outspoken Left-wing ‘firebrand’. And, thanks to their briefing, he had detailed knowledge of the scale of the scandal.
Surely, they thought, Corbyn would therefore stop at nothing to protect Islington’s vulnerable children, and to bring rapists, pornographers and possible murderers to justice
Or so they hoped. But, in the event, Davies and her fellow social workers would be sorely disappointed.
Corbyn never wrote to Davies, or telephoned, to acknowledge their meeting, or thank her for seeking to blow the whistle.
‘After that meeting, we never heard another thing,’ Davies recalls. ‘There was no letter. No phone call. I never, ever saw him speak about it.
‘In fact, whenever I saw Jeremy afterwards, sometimes years later at Stop The War marches and events like that, I’d always go up to him and say: “This scandal is still going on, Jeremy.” He’d be very polite, but he never seemed to do anything.’
Indeed, 23 years later, Liz Davies has yet to see Corbyn express what she regards as sufficient anger, or regret, over the Islington abuse scandal, or to publicly criticise the many local politicians, council workers and political allies who allowed it to happen in the first place.
This seems highly pertinent given that Corbyn is now standing for the Labour leadership, at a time when historic abuse allegations are to be the subject of a major public inquiry.
Indeed, the question of what Jeremy Corbyn did, or didn’t do, when the now notorious child sex scandal hit his Islington North constituency all those years ago, became a talking point in the current leadership election.
Fellow Labour MP John Mann published an open letter accusing him of ‘doing nothing’ to prevent the abuse. ‘Your inaction in the 1980s and 1990s says a lot — not about your personal character, which I admire, but about your politics, which I do not,’ Mann wrote, adding that the Left-winger’s track record on the issue made it ‘inappropriate’ for him to now become party leader.
Mann further pointed out that, in a separate 1986 incident, Corbyn had gone so far as to attack the Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens for drawing public attention to the alleged existence of a child brothel on Islington’s Elthorne housing estate.
After Dickens — who was convinced there was a conspiracy to cover up widespread paedophilic abuse in political circles and the security services — had raised fears of a child prostitution racket operating there, Corbyn used a local newspaper to accuse the Tory backbencher of ‘getting cheap publicity at the expense of innocent children’.
Then he formally complained to the Commons Speaker about Dickens visiting the constituency without first informing him, calling those actions ‘irresponsible’.
He's a traitor spook, isn't it obvious from his failure to protect children?
...an outspoken Left-wing ‘firebrand’.
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: brancolinoxx
He's against interventionism which seeing the mess we've been left with thanks to our adventures is no bad thing , he favours talking above bombing civilians.
originally posted by: gortex
He wants to scrap Trident which would save our country Billions from a system we don't even control , another good idea.
originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
However, I would probably have a lot more respect for the Tories if they were truthful about the cuts to the welfare system, instead of hiding behind the B.S of austerity. It's their ideology, along with cuts to other public services, in order to reduce the Tax Burden of the rich.
originally posted by: crazyewok
Well least labour lead by someone with abit of integrity, even if I do fundamentally disagree with all most everything thats comes out of corbyns mouth.
Least there is a choice now between the parties, even if that choice is a bad one.
JC: I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened.
During the leadership campaign a spokesman for Corbyn told The Telegraph: “Jeremy has long urged a long term negotiated settlement. During the leadership campaign a spokesman for Corbyn told The Telegraph: “Jeremy has long urged a long term negotiated settlement which of course should take into consideration the views of the islanders themselves.
6. Replacing Trident would be a costly mistake. Corbyn, a long-term CND member, says plans to replace the nuclear missile system should be ditched. He believes the project's £100bn price tag could be better spent "on our national well-being".
No surprises here - he is just continuing the long held Labour policy of gutting our national defences. You can bet he won't put the money into increasing our conventional forces instead, leaving us a minor power and totally reliant on foreign nations to protect us..
originally posted by: alldaylong
The U.K. and France are the ONLY E.U. Countries with a nuclear weapons. More an ego thing than anything else.
So my question to you. Are countries such as Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, The Republic Of Ireland, Belgium, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc etc more likely to be nuked or attacked than The U.K., because they have no nuclear deterrent?
My answer to that question would be no they wouldn't. As i have stated, The U.K. having nuclear weapons is all about ego.