+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 55 of 57 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 564

Thread: O/T Jeremy corbyn

  1. #541
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post

    And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way.
    He presented a call-in show on the Iranian state news channel.

    Here he is saying the BBC are biased for saying that Israel has a right to exist.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOZG50EuAg

    In 2014 he made a speech at London Islamic centre to mark the twenty fifth anniversary of the Iranian Revolution.

    At this event, he praised Iran’s, "Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings in Iran."

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8138696.html
    Last edited by great_fire; 22-06-2019 at 11:39 AM.

  2. #542
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,287
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    You’re sounding desperate now Kerr. All of a sudden, you may disagree with actions of the British State but you’re not willing to justify killings against it.

    You completely miss the point: the British state were the first with the killings that led to the formation of the PIRA. We started it with the killing of civilians (yes including children if you’re going to use child deaths to try and emote your case) and then after the escalation (after 1968) we continued to work with the police forces in Ulster to organise and carry out the deaths of catholic civilians in Northern Ireland. This started and fuelled the retaliation from unionist forces throughout the troubles. But you are condemning the actions of only the unionist side, but not the exact equivalent barbarism of the British State organised and funded loyalists. We were just as much the terrorists as they were.

    As I said, MacDonnell and the Labour Party do take sides on this against the British State as they were part of the NI Labour Party that in 1968 tried to organise protest actions to support the NI Catholics that were effectively living in apartheid conditions since the NI land carve up and found that these actions were met with violence and terrorist action (if we’re going down that road of language) that culminated in Bogside, machine guns and unionist deaths, including the child. But if you want the clearest evidence of British state sponsored terrorism against innocent civilians, you might just want to look at the 120 deaths in Glennane in many separate incidents. So yes, the left at the time took up strong solidarity with Catholics, they were there at the time in the NI Labour Party and they felt the British State brutality that then launched ‘the troubles’ into armed combat, with terrorism from both sides.

    So, to be clear, and in sequence to help you understand:
    1. British state form Northern Ireland as predominantly protestant state and create conditions for resident Catholics that resemble apartheid
    2. NI Labour Party organise protests for Catholic civil rights
    3. British State use violence and ultimately murder of Catholic civilians
    4. The PIRA is formed as counter resistance to the British State
    5. Both PIRA and the British State continue terrorist tit for tat atrocities for the next 20 years until the peace process evolved and political solution found

    That leads to the question of ‘terrorism’ in the name of a cause with which you identify. You appear to be suggesting that the use of terrorism in the name of a cause invalidates that cause, or at least that people who act in non-violent terms for that cause must somehow withdraw their support? Is that what you’re saying? Are you one of those thick headed ****s that say “Mandela was a terrorist and therefore should have died in jail”? Should the AFC have downed their anti-apartheid protest just because ‘terrorists’ like Mandela worked for their cause? The British State actions in Ireland is just another damning part of British history going all the way back to the formation of the Empire, that is rightfully opposed, and that is what Abbot was referring to 30 years ago. Further to this, and for the very same reasons Corbyn tends to side with the Palestinian cause but has been clear in condemning all murders in that cause. There are many people fighting the Palestinian cause, most are committed to peaceful means but some are committed to violence and extremities. Just like Ireland. Just like South Africa. The fact that some people use violence in the name of a cause does not mean that the cause is wrong. And just because a country’s state is dominant as it defines it’s treatment of people who live within it, it does not excuse their own appalling actions from being labelled acts of terrorism. Even if we happen to now live in that state.

    (I wish Abbot had talked more in that interview about her old feelings of the British State and it’s own terrorist actions. For intelligent self critical people, who can detatch themselves from nationalistic jingoism, she would have made a very strong case. But you know as well as I do that any such comments would have been immediately jumped on as blatant anti-British, terrorist supporting and plastered all over the tabloids. That’s how we roll).

    And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way. He has not denied the dreadful actions in Sarajevo in any way. He did not oppose intervention in Sierra Leonne. Your pulling up of a blog from an anti-Corbynist that simply shows Corbyn on holiday having a photo taken with an idiot does not suggest anything. You should go with stated words, wise or questionable) and policies that come direct from Corbyn, now just imply and infer just because it suits your colonialist blinkered world view.

    (And in relation to Exile’s post on Slavery. The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. I would suggest that you first of all brush up on all that knowledge of Irish History that you have clearly “forgotten” and then look up some history of the British Empire, the slave trade and its repercussions that affect us now. I would recommend Akala’s “Natives race and class in the ruins of empire” to see how it impacts on Black communities still in the UK and beyond. You might actually learn something.)


    The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. [/quote]

    Couldn't have put it better myself
    It sums Kerr up to a tee
    although he's actually denying that he said it in his usual obfuscatory way
    Not only a liar but rather silly
    We as a nation have in my view little to be proud of in our Imperialist past
    We have fought with, colonised, enslaved & ruled other nations more than any other nation all in the name of Empire I would suggest that joe average didn't particularly benefit but those with power & wealth most certainly did
    We even followed the same mantra when subjugating our home nations Scotland,Wales Ireland
    Last edited by Exiletyke; 22-06-2019 at 02:34 PM.

  3. #543
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,309
    Quote Originally Posted by great_fire View Post
    He presented a call-in show on the Iranian state news channel.

    Here he is saying the BBC are biased for saying that Israel has a right to exist.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOZG50EuAg

    In 2014 he made a speech at London Islamic centre to mark the twenty fifth anniversary of the Iranian Revolution.

    At this event, he praised Iran’s, "Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings in Iran."

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8138696.html

    1. For clarity he is not saying that Israel does not have a right to exist. He is arguing that BBC journalists are being pressured by their Head, in turn pressured by the government, in turn pressured by Israel government to report stories in favour of Israel as a democracy, has a right to exist and is acting on valid security concerns. That is not the same thing as arguing that Israel has no right to exist. If you become intrested in Corbyn's actaul, real views on the status on Israel you can find it in seconds with a simple search. You'll find that he does argue that Israel has a right to exists and is a supporter of the two state solution.

    2. I'm no expert on Iranian history and am interested in Corbyn's comments that you quote. I am aware that the 1979 Iranian revolution was intended by many liberals to embark Iran into a more progressive regime and it appeared to start that way before quickly regressing into an intolerant one. Quite how far that regression shifted and to what level of severity I don't know enough about it but Corbyn's quote here looks ill justified. However, I am suspicious at how much coverage of this there is of this quote and how little the quote is available to view. I have only found an 8 second clip where it is quite unclear to what whom he is referring let alone what context. Have you found anything more extended on this to give us more insight? We may find that you are right and it is an extremely ill judged comment but we may also find that it completely taken out of context. Happy to review either way with an open mind.

    3. Regarding the Iran TV appearances, I would say that these are bad decisions. However, Corbyn has argued that he used these as an opportunity to argue against the deteriorating human rights situation and this is backed up by actions with Corbyn signing up to these early day motions against Iran:

    1. Against executions (2010) https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/40341
    2. Women's rights in Iran (2010): https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/40208
    3. Treatment of minorities in Iran (2009) https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/39897
    4. Iran position on banning reporting of human right's day (2009): https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/39953

    All of these motions went through in the period where he appeared on Iran TV. Hardly suggests that he was in their pockets does it? And certainly he was taking the most anti-Iranian position in parliemtn as these motions were backed up by small numbers of MPs, hardly any of them Conservative. Where were they in their condemnation of Iranian policies? However, that being said, I don't think it was a good idea of Corbyn's to appear on Iran media.

    It's easy to forget that Corbyn has a 50 year record of campaigning on International issues. In many of these time has proved him to be on very much the right side of history with big campaigns lent to campaigning against the apartheid regime in South Africa, Chile and opposition to damaging actions in the middle East that have cost us many lives and set about the rise of Islamic terrorism. This article gives a fair and critical account of Corbyn's international campaigning, warts and all, if you're interested in fairness that is: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...droidApp_Email
    Last edited by ragingpup; 22-06-2019 at 04:40 PM. Reason: Usual illiteracy

  4. #544
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    10,252
    Quote Originally Posted by animallittle3 View Post
    The minimum wage , working tax credits and investment in to schools and the NHS clearly past you by biglad .
    No mate none of them did.

    Working tax credits are needed because wages are not enough to keep a working family above the cost of living which makes the minimum wage not fit for purpose.

    The NHS under Blair was encouraged to compete against each other in individual areas which is why some hospitals had to close and a free for all broke out for their business (notice how I said business not patients). In some areas the NHS is starving for funds while others can waste millions without any comeback. NHS Foundation Trust's worked for some but failed for a lot more. Thanks Tony.

    The investment in schools you talk about came more from private investment than government investment. I agree that more money was spent in schools but little of that money was spent on education and more on such things as redevelopment, after school clubs, academies etc. Pupils leaving schools with higher grades etc only grew by a very small margin. Pre school and junior schools had very little investment in education. Secondary schools investment went mainly on ofsted. The GDP spent on the education of pupils under Blair still fell behind many countries in the EU in some cases by as much as 2% even though teachers rose by more than 30,000 and teaching assistants rose by more than 120,000.

    I don't think they passed me by Animal I think I understood them more than you thats all.
    Last edited by BigLadonOS; 22-06-2019 at 05:10 PM.

  5. #545
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,058
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLadonOS View Post
    No mate none of them did.

    Working tax credits are needed because wages are not enough to keep a working family above the cost of living which makes the minimum wage not fit for purpose.

    The NHS under Blair was encouraged to compete against each other in individual areas which is why some hospitals had to close and a free for all broke out for their business (notice how I said business not patients). In some areas the NHS is starving for funds while others can waste millions without any comeback. NHS Foundation Trust's worked for some but failed for a lot more. Thanks Tony.

    The investment in schools you talk about came more from private investment than government investment. I agree that more money was spent in schools but little of that money was spent on education and more on such things as redevelopment, after school clubs, academies etc. Pupils leaving schools with higher grades etc only grew by a very small margin. Pre school and junior schools had very little investment in education. Secondary schools investment went mainly on ofsted. The GDP spent on the education of pupils under Blair still fell behind many countries in the EU in some cases by as much as 2% even though teachers rose by more than 30,000 and teaching assistants rose by more than 120,000.

    I don't think they passed me by Animal I think I understood them more than you thats all.
    That still doesn't make Blair a full blown tory , a bad policy maker maybe because the will was demonstrated to improve wages , schools and the NHS .

  6. #546
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    10,252
    Quote Originally Posted by animallittle3 View Post
    That still doesn't make Blair a full blown tory , a bad policy maker maybe because the will was demonstrated to improve wages , schools and the NHS .
    Was the will there really? I think they were nothing but election campaign fodder (winter is coming) for us dumb ****ers in the north.

    NHS Foundation Trust's, Academe Trust's, Education Trust's all were set up for profit making nothing more and with the NMW effecting less than 2% of workers you could say that it was nothing more than an effort to hoodwink the voters.

    You are correct on one thing though. Blair was not a fully fledged Tory but he came very close to it.

  7. #547
    Tony Blair is one of those dangerous people that desire long lasting fame. A place in the history books as “a great leader”

    unfortunately he lacks all of the talents and skills to be one, and has gone into the history books as a failure.

  8. #548
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    Quote Originally Posted by animallittle3 View Post
    The minimum wage , working tax credits and investment in to schools and the NHS clearly past you by biglad .

    I'm no Blair lover by any means but it would be unfair to place him as a true blue tory , tory light most definitely .

    Blair's problem was that you can't be a gamekeeper and a poacher and he got hoodwinked by the w@nkers in the city and big business whilst presenting an image of taking the working class vote for granted .

    A man should always know his limitations .

    There isn't a Labour government worth it's salt who should have championed and trusted those feckers in the city and the electorate punished them for it .

    I never thought Blair was totally against me but I can't say he was whole heartedly with me either .

    It's us versus them , always was and always will be , it's very naive in my opinion to think some new party will come across and bridge the divides .

    Nobody but nobody compromises on the distribution of wealth and they aren't about to start today .

    You want to get your slice of the pie then you have to fight for it and win , no fecker is giving you anything .

    History is my reference .
    History is great, but you need to learn from it as well as referencing it.

    Remind me how the union militancy of the period 1965 to 1985 worked out. The value of money being eroded by inflation that was partially driven by excessive wage demands and swathes of British industry priced out of markets such as to fuel unemployment.

  9. #549
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
    You’re sounding desperate now Kerr. All of a sudden, you may disagree with actions of the British State but you’re not willing to justify killings against it.

    You completely miss the point: the British state were the first with the killings that led to the formation of the PIRA. We started it with the killing of civilians (yes including children if you’re going to use child deaths to try and emote your case) and then after the escalation (after 1968) we continued to work with the police forces in Ulster to organise and carry out the deaths of catholic civilians in Northern Ireland. This started and fuelled the retaliation from unionist forces throughout the troubles. But you are condemning the actions of only the unionist side, but not the exact equivalent barbarism of the British State organised and funded loyalists. We were just as much the terrorists as they were.

    As I said, MacDonnell and the Labour Party do take sides on this against the British State as they were part of the NI Labour Party that in 1968 tried to organise protest actions to support the NI Catholics that were effectively living in apartheid conditions since the NI land carve up and found that these actions were met with violence and terrorist action (if we’re going down that road of language) that culminated in Bogside, machine guns and unionist deaths, including the child. But if you want the clearest evidence of British state sponsored terrorism against innocent civilians, you might just want to look at the 120 deaths in Glennane in many separate incidents. So yes, the left at the time took up strong solidarity with Catholics, they were there at the time in the NI Labour Party and they felt the British State brutality that then launched ‘the troubles’ into armed combat, with terrorism from both sides.

    So, to be clear, and in sequence to help you understand:
    1. British state form Northern Ireland as predominantly protestant state and create conditions for resident Catholics that resemble apartheid
    2. NI Labour Party organise protests for Catholic civil rights
    3. British State use violence and ultimately murder of Catholic civilians
    4. The PIRA is formed as counter resistance to the British State
    5. Both PIRA and the British State continue terrorist tit for tat atrocities for the next 20 years until the peace process evolved and political solution found

    That leads to the question of ‘terrorism’ in the name of a cause with which you identify. You appear to be suggesting that the use of terrorism in the name of a cause invalidates that cause, or at least that people who act in non-violent terms for that cause must somehow withdraw their support? Is that what you’re saying? Are you one of those thick headed ****s that say “Mandela was a terrorist and therefore should have died in jail”? Should the AFC have downed their anti-apartheid protest just because ‘terrorists’ like Mandela worked for their cause? The British State actions in Ireland is just another damning part of British history going all the way back to the formation of the Empire, that is rightfully opposed, and that is what Abbot was referring to 30 years ago. Further to this, and for the very same reasons Corbyn tends to side with the Palestinian cause but has been clear in condemning all murders in that cause. There are many people fighting the Palestinian cause, most are committed to peaceful means but some are committed to violence and extremities. Just like Ireland. Just like South Africa. The fact that some people use violence in the name of a cause does not mean that the cause is wrong. And just because a country’s state is dominant as it defines it’s treatment of people who live within it, it does not excuse their own appalling actions from being labelled acts of terrorism. Even if we happen to now live in that state.

    (I wish Abbot had talked more in that interview about her old feelings of the British State and it’s own terrorist actions. For intelligent self critical people, who can detatch themselves from nationalistic jingoism, she would have made a very strong case. But you know as well as I do that any such comments would have been immediately jumped on as blatant anti-British, terrorist supporting and plastered all over the tabloids. That’s how we roll).

    And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way. He has not denied the dreadful actions in Sarajevo in any way. He did not oppose intervention in Sierra Leonne. Your pulling up of a blog from an anti-Corbynist that simply shows Corbyn on holiday having a photo taken with an idiot does not suggest anything. You should go with stated words, wise or questionable) and policies that come direct from Corbyn, now just imply and infer just because it suits your colonialist blinkered world view.

    (And in relation to Exile’s post on Slavery. The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. I would suggest that you first of all brush up on all that knowledge of Irish History that you have clearly “forgotten” and then look up some history of the British Empire, the slave trade and its repercussions that affect us now. I would recommend Akala’s “Natives race and class in the ruins of empire” to see how it impacts on Black communities still in the UK and beyond. You might actually learn something.)
    I’m starting to think that we are not going to agree on Corbs and the Labour top table, raging.

    I don’t want to take an unfair point, so I would like to check: Your initial position on the Labour top table and PIRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah was that they were not sympathisers and that Corbs was, instead, actually taking part in a one man peace process that involved talking to only one side of the argument. Your current position seems to be that they were justified in being sympathisers because of ‘British state sponsored terrorism’ and because of the almost-child- like ‘Britain started it’. Is that correct?

    My position – again - is that I don’t care who started it – blowing up children in Warrington or people enjoying a drink in Birmingham, Guildford and other similar atrocities weren’t in any way justified. By anything.

    I can understand what you would have preferred Abbott to have talked about how it was the trauma of what happened to her ancestors several hundred years ago that caused her to say of PIRA "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed". If she had said it, you wouldn’t have had to make up that excuse for her.

    I don’t want Abbott as Home Secretary – responsible for the safety and security of the citizens of this country - particularly if her unresolved trauma at historic events is clouding her judgement and leaves her desiring defeats for the British state.

    On Press TV, we have the line that Corbs used it as an opportunity to raise Human Rights abuses in that country, even though we know that in 2014, he was praising Iran for it’s ‘Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings in Iran’ (no mention there of its lack of tolerance for gay people, women who will not toe the ‘modesty’ line, anyone critical of the Iranian state and others). You’ve clearly been looking to find the EDMs and so I’m sure you’ll be able to find many Press TV clips in which he takes Iran to task on Human Rights for us to enjoy.

    What really troubles me is the dishonesty that appears to have become a hallmark of the Labour spin machine. We have the three different explanation for Corbs support of the mural , we have the whitewash job for his association with terrorist groups and his ‘present but not participating’ excuse for his attendance at the wreath laying for dead terrorists. We even have the lies about the lack of seats on a train. You’ll be aware that Corbs went on national TV to say that his association with Press TV ended after the crushing of dissident protestors in 2009. You’ll also be aware that he actually appeared on there until 2012.

    I came upon this article: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3899281.html

    I appreciate that it comes from the Evening Standard and so will be dismissed out of hand, but, again, we see support for a convicted terrorist ‘brother’ and the post-truth explanation by Labour. It never ends.

  10. #550
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,309
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    I’m starting to think that we are not going to agree on Corbs and the Labour top table, raging.

    I don’t want to take an unfair point, so I would like to check: Your initial position on the Labour top table and PIRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah was that they were not sympathisers and that Corbs was, instead, actually taking part in a one man peace process that involved talking to only one side of the argument. Your current position seems to be that they were justified in being sympathisers because of ‘British state sponsored terrorism’ and because of the almost-child- like ‘Britain started it’. Is that correct?

    My position – again - is that I don’t care who started it – blowing up children in Warrington or people enjoying a drink in Birmingham, Guildford and other similar atrocities weren’t in any way justified. By anything.

    I can understand what you would have preferred Abbott to have talked about how it was the trauma of what happened to her ancestors several hundred years ago that caused her to say of PIRA "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed". If she had said it, you wouldn’t have had to make up that excuse for her.

    I don’t want Abbott as Home Secretary – responsible for the safety and security of the citizens of this country - particularly if her unresolved trauma at historic events is clouding her judgement and leaves her desiring defeats for the British state.

    On Press TV, we have the line that Corbs used it as an opportunity to raise Human Rights abuses in that country, even though we know that in 2014, he was praising Iran for it’s ‘Tolerance and acceptance of other faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings in Iran’ (no mention there of its lack of tolerance for gay people, women who will not toe the ‘modesty’ line, anyone critical of the Iranian state and others). You’ve clearly been looking to find the EDMs and so I’m sure you’ll be able to find many Press TV clips in which he takes Iran to task on Human Rights for us to enjoy.

    What really troubles me is the dishonesty that appears to have become a hallmark of the Labour spin machine. We have the three different explanation for Corbs support of the mural , we have the whitewash job for his association with terrorist groups and his ‘present but not participating’ excuse for his attendance at the wreath laying for dead terrorists. We even have the lies about the lack of seats on a train. You’ll be aware that Corbs went on national TV to say that his association with Press TV ended after the crushing of dissident protestors in 2009. You’ll also be aware that he actually appeared on there until 2012.

    I came upon this article: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3899281.html

    I appreciate that it comes from the Evening Standard and so will be dismissed out of hand, but, again, we see support for a convicted terrorist ‘brother’ and the post-truth explanation by Labour. It never ends.

    I do not call them "sympathisers". That's your label. I call them people who who take up and argue for a just cause. As I've said repeatedly, just because others take up their cause and use unexcusable violence does not invalidate the cause itself or the people using peaceful means to argue for it. The term "sympathisers" implies that you are an outsider to the cause, watching the events and just sympathising with the cause that the terrorists are fighting. That doesn't apply here as the politicians you are accusing are actively involved with these causes. The difference is that they are using political action as opposed to violent action. And it is perfectly possible to do this whilst condemning those, also fighting for your cause, who use violence.

    Of course you now say that it doesn't matter "who started it" now that I have laid the timeline of events down for you. What matters for you is to condemn one side that was carrying out murder of civilians, yet not apply the same condemnation to the other side. To point this out is not to excuse the murders by the PIRA in any way, I condemn them as always. But where's your condemnation of the civilian murders of the British State that started the conflict and then ran throughout?

    To the main point. I'll break it down:

    1. Are you arguing that Corbyn and others who take the Irish/Palestinian side should cease supporting the historic cause, just because some who argue the same cause happen to use indefensible violence in it's name?

    2. Do you condemn the terrorist actions of the British State in their murder of Irish civilians in the troubles?

    3. Do you apply the same position to Mandela and those who fought politically against apartheid in South Africa. Including Corbyn who actively demonstrated in this cause whilst the Conservative government took pretty much the same view as you take here? Was Mandela wrong to firstly take up arms for his cause for which he was convicted? And then were the politicians who continued the long fight to end apartheid wrong just because 'terrorists' like Mandela used violence in that cause?


    Re: Corbyn's quotes on Iran/Press TV appearances I've covered in post 543 above. It doesn't appear good for Corbyn with info given but can you supply a transcript of these quotes in context of a video longer than the 8 second one I've found that might show further context of what he was saying with these comments? The 8 second video is brutally edited to cut out any other words surrounding just that quote. I would have thought, being a man of rigour, and being so concerned with these words as to repeat them time and again that you would have looked a bit more deeply into this as you are aware how words can be taken out of context, especially when people are looking to do anything to oppose a politician? Please link to the quotes in context that you did find when you went into this, and then I'll comment further.

    And by the way, on the Press TV clips, can you also look to find evidence of the "many" TV appearances that Corbyn made on this? I've tried but can only find one clip. This website has investigated the appearances and found only two payment entries made in Corbyn's accounts ledger and that the £20,000 is a work of fiction: https://skwawkbox.org/2018/01/29/faw...re-iranian-tv/

    Like the links that you present, the website is presenting a slant on the argument but as they say, their research is available for you to check if you doubt their word on TheyWorkForYou website. It shows that the last of TWO payments for Corbyn's appearances was in 2010 and the most he could have received was "up to" £10k but could have been £10 for all we know. The specific amount is not recorded. So where do you get your £20,000 from that you keep repeating endlessly?

    As you know, I have presented evidence that Iran actually took action against Iran in signing the EDMs in 2009/10. How do you explain that when he is supposedly supporting their actions?

    Answers please. If you can.
    Last edited by ragingpup; 23-06-2019 at 08:49 AM.

Page 55 of 57 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •