British opposition leader Corbyn a SPY?

a reply to: oldcarpy

At the time, the treaty was opposed by many unionists as well as Sinn Fein and the IRA, and it failed to stop paramilitary violence in the province.

Why would anyone support a treaty that neither side wanted or that didn't stop the violence??

a reply to: Flavian

That would be the same Tom Watson who is currently calling for a ban on bringing historic smears against current MPs. The same TW who called Leon Brittan "evil" in a Commons Select Committee and who had to apologise to his widow when it turned out the allegations that LB was a paedophile turned out to be a fantasy.

A hypocrite of the highest order.

a reply to: sosobad


True to a point, but the truth is that he never supported the Peace Movement, he wanted the IRA to win militarily over the British Government and no amount of whitewash will cover that up.

Do you recall a publication called Labour Briefing? JC should. He was a board member who also organised it's mailing list and spoke at meetings. It virulently supported the armed struggle.

Weeks after the Brighton bombing it supported the IRA "unequivocally" and called for an unconditional British withdrawal from Ireland.

He actively encouraged the violence.

a reply to: oldcarpy

In December 1984, the magazine carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start." It mocked Norman Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel and whose wife was left permanently paralysed, saying: "Try riding your bike now, Norman".The same issue carried an editorial piece from the editorial board which "disassociated itself" from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a "serious political misjudgment".[5]

So it was a letter submitted by a reader

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Also as far as I can tell he wasn't even a part of the publication at that time.

a reply to: sosobad


From your own source, which you selectively quote from.

The editorial board of London Labour Briefing (not talking about a reader's letter here so why do you falsely claim this?) said the bombings "showed that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it".

The editorial board. Not talking about the Tebbit letter at all, are we?

And are you suggesting that JC's excuse is "Some bigger boys did it and ran away?"

According to your source the editorial board "disassociated" itself from a previous article which apparently criticised the bombing.

You can try and whitewash as much as you like but you are not doing a very good job.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Another widely circulated claim is that as a member of the editorial board of London Labour Briefing (along with Tony Benn), Corbyn was responsible for an editorial that stated: ‘the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it’.  And yet (as Nathan Akehurst has argued elsewhere) this sentence can only possibly be read as an endorsement of bombing when taken completely out of context. The article argues that given that the IRA were "determined never to lay down arms" until listened to, republican voices "must be heard". Consequently, its authors clearly endorse Sinn Fein’s ballot box strategy. The bombing reference read in light of these remarks isn't a defence of violence, but is a condemnation of the causes of it. As such, it is again consistent with Corbyn’s insistence on dialogue – a conviction that anticipated Mo Mowlam’s much lauded policy of ‘talking to terrorists’.

www.opendemocracy.net...

So now pretty much every news source in Western media is covering these claims about Corbyn, we know he met the spy.
The only question is did he know he was a spy, and only Corbyn can answer that.

I'm amazed by all those here asserting he is innocent, you don't know that at all, no more than I do.
I keep an open mind, but wouldn't be surprised with that weak sell out weasel.

a reply to: sosobad


Read your own source that you previously posted - it is not taken out of context at all.

You have posted another article making all sorts of lame excuses and apologies for JC.

So JC never did support Hamas? Really?

Please stop trying to re-write history, it is not going to fool anyone.

a reply to: oldcarpy

That was the wiki outlining the event and the second post goes into detail, also you are attacking the source about Hamas but you didn't refute the points it made. Anything put in front of you is met with you sticking your fingers in your ears and shout la la la

a reply to: sosobad


No, the second post does not go into detail unless it absolutely suits them and just makes lame and frankly pathetic attempts to whitewash history.

I suppose JC's chum McMao never praised the IRA for its bombs and bullets either? Or was that taken out of context, too?

Of course, when they were both obscure back bench rebel MP's they could say what they liked but now they are trying to be elected to govern the country (God help us if they ever do) they have to try to pretend that they are not the swivel eyed Sparts that they really are.

These things are coming back to haunt them.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Let's also not forget he didn't support military action to reclaim the Falklands, backing instead some snivelling game of play shares n share with Argentina.
He's spineless in my opinion and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he had been sympathetic towards Soviet spies.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I had not forgotten that.

He also wanted to keep our nuclear subs but without arming them with nukes.

He also held out Venezuela as a shining example of Socialism. Gone a bit quiet about that now, though.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I had not forgotten that.

He also wanted to keep our nuclear subs but without arming them with nukes.

He also held out Venezuela as a shining example of Socialism. Gone a bit quiet about that now, though.

But but but....he'll give free tuition for any crap degree!!!
To be fair I do actually agree with him about many social responsibility issues, but his weakness dealing with external threats is my main concern about him ever leading the nation.

As I said earlier, either the spy claims are true or there is a massive smear campaign going on in the higher echelons. Either way that tells me he's ultimately screwed and will never become PM.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


When I was at Uni someone wrote under the bog paper - "Sociology degrees - please take one".

At the end of the day he is a total Spart and has no clue about how to actually run anything. He has spent his political career until recently rebelling against everything, including his own party. Which is now being taken over by the Hard Left of old which, it seems, never went away. Remember the Militant Tendency? Not very pleasant people.

Labour now seems to be the "Nasty Party".

Will they ever have a female leader, I wonder?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


When I was at Uni someone wrote under the bog paper - "Sociology degrees - please take one".

At the end of the day he is a total Spart and has no clue about how to actually run anything. He has spent his political career until recently rebelling against everything, including his own party. Which is now being taken over by the Hard Left of old which, it seems, never went away. Remember the Militant Tendency? Not very pleasant people.

Labour now seems to be the "Nasty Party".

Will they ever have a female leader, I wonder?

Agreed about the militant left, I remember those days, along with violent union activists.
They only kept quiet, same as far right Tories, extremes on both sides know they need to appear more mainstream.

Labour is definitely appearing to revert to their old far left ways in my opinion though, and that along with weak shifty weasel Corbyn will cost them the next election.

Oh and just for the entertainment it will be funny if it turns out he was a Soviet sympathiser because that's his political career done for then.

...and as for female leader, who on earth would you pick? Dianne Abbot? 😂😂😂

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I knew you would suggest DB.

That would finish Labour off for good. I hope anyone who pays there 3 quid odd can get to vote for Labour leader like last time.

I did and voted for JC! As, I suspect, did a lot of non Labour voters.

I'm going to start a new party the Let's string em all up Party.
All of them are buggers, all end up self serving gits not one of them I want to vote for tbh.
When was the last really decent MP?.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Haha she would definitely finish the labour party off!!
I nearly paid the 3 odd quid to vote for Corbyn as well, only changed my mind because I've never joined a party in my life and I didn't want him to think he had my support. I wonder how many non labour voters did it because he was obviously not prime minister material.
😂

originally posted by: testingtesting
I'm going to start a new party the Let's string em all up Party.
All of them are buggers, all end up self serving gits not one of them I want to vote for tbh.
When was the last really decent MP?.

My last MP was fantastic, lib dem worked really hard for my constituency, advocacy work, really accessible, excellent voting record in the commons, a disappointment was replaced by a Tory in the last election.

The new MP is smug, inaccessible and seems more interested in Westminster than the constituents.
You get what you vote for I guess, same for the labour membership and their comrade Corbyn.

We in the states have the exact same problem.....a lack of a third party equal to the other 2. Whats the saying.....theres your side, my side, and the truth. The tea party was sucked up by the right so fast that it couldnt gain traction. The left had some great ideas on criminal and police reforms but got lost in antifa. It seems the middle is the minority.
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy