Corona Virus

Post Reply
Localshot
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:31 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Localshot » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:13 am

Cph.shots wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:58 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
Yes brilliant, as I didn't vote for either I ca see the funny side.
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
Nope can't see any funny side to it.
Criticising israel is not anti semetic.
L-B does seem to have made an error of judgement by re tweeting a conspiracy theory, that's all.
'Thats all'
Unfortunately that says a lot. At least Starmer did the right thing.

Crowthorne
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:18 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Crowthorne » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:00 am

Cph.shots wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:58 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
Yes brilliant, as I didn't vote for either I ca see the funny side.
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
Nope can't see any funny side to it.
Criticising israel is not anti semetic.
L-B does seem to have made an error of judgement by re tweeting a conspiracy theory, that's all.
Have you and LB been spending too much time by that mermaid statue and started believing fairytales?

Charles Dickens
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:38 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Charles Dickens » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:05 am

Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
Yes brilliant, as I didn't vote for either I ca see the funny side.
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
Going back to Labours roots was their last leaders battle cry, but JC was surprised to find out that the roots had disappeared. Tony Blair recognised this and won elections.However the marxist left is still a powerful force in the Labour Party and is unlikely to give up its outdated doctrines, so Mr Starmer will have to come to terms with this after the end of his honeymoon as the new leader.

Crowthorne
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:18 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Crowthorne » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:15 am

Kinnock had to get rid of militant who were a party within a party.
Corbyn presided over the idiots of momentum taking over the local branches and ousting core supporters. Starmer has a lot to do to regain popular backing.
John Smith must be turning in his grave at what has happened to his party.

lanternhall
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:38 am

Crowthorne wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:15 am
Kinnock had to get rid of militant who were a party within a party.
Corbyn presided over the idiots of momentum taking over the local branches and ousting core supporters. Starmer has a lot to do to regain popular backing.
John Smith must be turning in his grave at what has happened to his party.
You are right. I am a Labour supporter but I really can't believe how they didn't learn from history. I think Kinnock was a good leader.
He recovered the party from the Michael Foot disaster of leadership and actually made the party electable again.
Was totally stupid in his last general election as took it for granted that he had won. He did however move the party to the centre ground, which led to Blair.

To start with Blair was a good leader. Unfortunately he liked getting involved in wars leading to him lying to parliament about Iraq and getting us into an illegal war.
Then the party doesn't learn from history and we get Corbyn.
I think Starmer ls a good leader He is certainly better Prime Minister material than Johnson but the party is decimated. The chances of Labour winning next election are remote.
However all the time the Tories have Johnson as leader there is a chance. The man is an inept clown.

Old Bob
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:23 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Old Bob » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:58 am

Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
That's very simplistic. The situation with regard to the Labour Party and anti-semitism is complicated, but here's my take:
There is a fundamental difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. The former is a legitimate political persuasion; the latter is unacceptable racism.
Pro-Zionists have always sought to confuse the two, portraying anti-Zionism as anti-semitism, as a way of damping down criticism of the state of Israel.
There is a tradition of anti-Zionism on the Labour left, much of it coming from Jewish people themselves.
Like any large "broad church" organisation, the Labour Party has probably always had a few anti-semites among its ranks.
Jeremy Corbyn was/is an anti-Zionist but (in my judgement) was/is as far from being an anti-semite as it's possible to be.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, and his open anti-Zionism, gave anti-semites in the Labour Party the courage to come out of the woodwork and start expressing their odious views more openly.
The Labour Party leadership was not quick enough to stamp this out as strongly as they should have done, probably because they were themselves confused about the issue, seeing claims of institutional anti-semitism as attacks on their traditional, legitimate anti-Zionism.

That was the position when Kier Starmer took over from Corbyn. The Labour Party was not institutionally anti-semitic, and was improperly under attack from Zionists who sought to confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. However, they could have done more to root out a very small amount of anti-semitism among a very small number of racists in the party.

To my mind, Starmer now sees political capital in being "pro-Zionist" (as it were), in effect treating claims of institutional Labour anti-semitism as legitimate when they are not. So he has taken the opportunity to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as a win-win. He wins by establishing his credentials as someone who is going to take seriously and root out (virtually non-existent) anti-semitism; he wins by making an excuse to get shot of a political rival. It's an act of desperate opportunism.

If you look at Long-Bailey's record, it is plain to see that she is no anti-semite. But then you'd have to do a bit of background research, which might not be to your taste.

Just to point out finally that I am no supporter of Labour or any of the large political parties. Big party politics is in my mind a disaster for us all.

redblueuptoyou
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 1:52 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by redblueuptoyou » Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:04 pm

The Momentum lot (I think a few could be referred to as student activists or ‘champagne socialists’) really aren’t happy with Starmer due to the RLB thing (to me, he did the right thing here - surely a Labour MP shouldn’t be going anywhere near anything that could be construed as anti-semitism?) and the way he’s offered to support/constructively criticise the government. The polls and his actions so far tell a different story and most seem to like him and his measured approach.

Crowthorne
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:18 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Crowthorne » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:49 pm

By getting Labour back to its roots I mean representing the working classes. What it has become now is an international focused organisation more interested in middle eastern affairs than that of the working man in our country.

Birdman
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Aldershot
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Birdman » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:55 pm

lanternhall wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:38 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:15 am
Kinnock had to get rid of militant who were a party within a party.
Corbyn presided over the idiots of momentum taking over the local branches and ousting core supporters. Starmer has a lot to do to regain popular backing.
John Smith must be turning in his grave at what has happened to his party.
You are right. I am a Labour supporter but I really can't believe how they didn't learn from history. I think Kinnock was a good leader.
He recovered the party from the Michael Foot disaster of leadership and actually made the party electable again.
Was totally stupid in his last general election as took it for granted that he had won. He did however move the party to the centre ground, which led to Blair.

To start with Blair was a good leader. Unfortunately he liked getting involved in wars leading to him lying to parliament about Iraq and getting us into an illegal war.
Then the party doesn't learn from history and we get Corbyn.
I think Starmer ls a good leader He is certainly better Prime Minister material than Johnson but the party is decimated. The chances of Labour winning next election are remote.
However all the time the Tories have Johnson as leader there is a chance. The man is an inept clown.
Wasn’t this down to Ed Miliband wanting to be ‘more democratic’ and giving Labour Party supporters (not necessarily members at that time) the right to choose (by election) its leader rather than the sitting MP’s? One could join the party (if I remember correctly) for £3 and participate in the leadership race. It was something along those lines.

lanternhall
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:08 pm

Birdman wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:55 pm
lanternhall wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:38 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:15 am
Kinnock had to get rid of militant who were a party within a party.
Corbyn presided over the idiots of momentum taking over the local branches and ousting core supporters. Starmer has a lot to do to regain popular backing.
John Smith must be turning in his grave at what has happened to his party.
You are right. I am a Labour supporter but I really can't believe how they didn't learn from history. I think Kinnock was a good leader.
He recovered the party from the Michael Foot disaster of leadership and actually made the party electable again.
Was totally stupid in his last general election as took it for granted that he had won. He did however move the party to the centre ground, which led to Blair.

To start with Blair was a good leader. Unfortunately he liked getting involved in wars leading to him lying to parliament about Iraq and getting us into an illegal war.
Then the party doesn't learn from history and we get Corbyn.
I think Starmer ls a good leader He is certainly better Prime Minister material than Johnson but the party is decimated. The chances of Labour winning next election are remote.
However all the time the Tories have Johnson as leader there is a chance. The man is an inept clown.
Wasn’t this down to Ed Miliband wanting to be ‘more democratic’ and giving Labour Party supporters (not necessarily members at that time) the right to choose (by election) its leader rather than the sitting MP’s? One could join the party (if I remember correctly) for £3 and participate in the leadership race. It was something along those lines.
It was and you are completely right. Anyone could join. Rumours were some Tory supporters joined to sabotage election of leader. Process of election was ridiculous. Some MPS nominated Corbyn at last minute to be fair to everyone. Farcical.

Cph.shots
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Cph.shots » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:46 pm

Old Bob wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:58 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
That's very simplistic. The situation with regard to the Labour Party and anti-semitism is complicated, but here's my take:
There is a fundamental difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. The former is a legitimate political persuasion; the latter is unacceptable racism.
Pro-Zionists have always sought to confuse the two, portraying anti-Zionism as anti-semitism, as a way of damping down criticism of the state of Israel.
There is a tradition of anti-Zionism on the Labour left, much of it coming from Jewish people themselves.
Like any large "broad church" organisation, the Labour Party has probably always had a few anti-semites among its ranks.
Jeremy Corbyn was/is an anti-Zionist but (in my judgement) was/is as far from being an anti-semite as it's possible to be.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, and his open anti-Zionism, gave anti-semites in the Labour Party the courage to come out of the woodwork and start expressing their odious views more openly.
The Labour Party leadership was not quick enough to stamp this out as strongly as they should have done, probably because they were themselves confused about the issue, seeing claims of institutional anti-semitism as attacks on their traditional, legitimate anti-Zionism.

That was the position when Kier Starmer took over from Corbyn. The Labour Party was not institutionally anti-semitic, and was improperly under attack from Zionists who sought to confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. However, they could have done more to root out a very small amount of anti-semitism among a very small number of racists in the party.

To my mind, Starmer now sees political capital in being "pro-Zionist" (as it were), in effect treating claims of institutional Labour anti-semitism as legitimate when they are not. So he has taken the opportunity to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as a win-win. He wins by establishing his credentials as someone who is going to take seriously and root out (virtually non-existent) anti-semitism; he wins by making an excuse to get shot of a political rival. It's an act of desperate opportunism.

If you look at Long-Bailey's record, it is plain to see that she is no anti-semite. But then you'd have to do a bit of background research, which might not be to your taste.

Just to point out finally that I am no supporter of Labour or any of the large political parties. Big party politics is in my mind a disaster for us all.

I think you've summed it up very well OB.
There are also plenty of Israelis who don't support zionism, some don't even want an Israeli state.
Thee problem is The Israeli state has become synon, mus with Judasim.
Another complication is that there are christian zionists who have roughly the same religous beliefs and along with ordinary greed and meddeling from overseas makes it a untolerable situaton for the Palestinians.

Cph.shots
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Cph.shots » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:47 pm

Crowthorne wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:00 am
Cph.shots wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:58 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
Yes brilliant, as I didn't vote for either I ca see the funny side.
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
Nope can't see any funny side to it.
Criticising israel is not anti semetic.
L-B does seem to have made an error of judgement by re tweeting a conspiracy theory, that's all.
Have you and LB been spending too much time by that mermaid statue and started believing fairytales?
No lol's this time?

hepcat
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:50 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by hepcat » Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:36 pm

Old Bob wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:58 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
That's very simplistic. The situation with regard to the Labour Party and anti-semitism is complicated, but here's my take:
There is a fundamental difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. The former is a legitimate political persuasion; the latter is unacceptable racism.
Pro-Zionists have always sought to confuse the two, portraying anti-Zionism as anti-semitism, as a way of damping down criticism of the state of Israel.
There is a tradition of anti-Zionism on the Labour left, much of it coming from Jewish people themselves.
Like any large "broad church" organisation, the Labour Party has probably always had a few anti-semites among its ranks.
Jeremy Corbyn was/is an anti-Zionist but (in my judgement) was/is as far from being an anti-semite as it's possible to be.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, and his open anti-Zionism, gave anti-semites in the Labour Party the courage to come out of the woodwork and start expressing their odious views more openly.
The Labour Party leadership was not quick enough to stamp this out as strongly as they should have done, probably because they were themselves confused about the issue, seeing claims of institutional anti-semitism as attacks on their traditional, legitimate anti-Zionism.

That was the position when Kier Starmer took over from Corbyn. The Labour Party was not institutionally anti-semitic, and was improperly under attack from Zionists who sought to confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. However, they could have done more to root out a very small amount of anti-semitism among a very small number of racists in the party.

To my mind, Starmer now sees political capital in being "pro-Zionist" (as it were), in effect treating claims of institutional Labour anti-semitism as legitimate when they are not. So he has taken the opportunity to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as a win-win. He wins by establishing his credentials as someone who is going to take seriously and root out (virtually non-existent) anti-semitism; he wins by making an excuse to get shot of a political rival. It's an act of desperate opportunism.

If you look at Long-Bailey's record, it is plain to see that she is no anti-semite. But then you'd have to do a bit of background research, which might not be to your taste.

Just to point out finally that I am no supporter of Labour or any of the large political parties. Big party politics is in my mind a disaster for us all.
The problem is that Corbyn IS an anti-Semite ; anyone who has been involved with Labour over the last 40 odd years will confirm. No anti racist would ever share platforms with known racists and terrorists once. Corbyn did regularly. A genuine anti racist would say "I support the Palestinian people, but I will never share a platform or attend any functions with people who advocate race hate and murder as solutions" Corbyn never said this. Tellingly he ran a mile from his threat to sue Rachael Riley for correctly calling him a racist as he knew RR's lawyer (who sued Kate Hopkins for Jack Monroe) had a mountain of evidence he'd have to face. Also, he never did a thing about the vile race hate in Labour that grew under him (not surprising as he shares the views) Images downloaded from the far right Aryan Nation website and he does nothing , conspiracy theories and he does nothing. Long Bailey shared and refused to take down an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That's antisemitism. It is not a point about Israeli politics. I think it is Labour who are confused about what is racism and legitimate protest against Israeli politics ; why else spout the conspiracy theories of the far right ? (again this highlights the total similarities between the far right and far left) You get daft comments like "He met with elected MP's like Adams and McGuiness ; right; so a Tory meeting with elected BNP councillors is ok then ? I loathe all politicians; all self serving charlatans and hypocrites. The total lack of questioning Corbyn and the race hate he allowed to flourish has completely undermined labour. They may have to reform in order to ditch and expunge the huge stain left by Corbyn.

lanternhall
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:32 pm

hepcat wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:36 pm
Old Bob wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:58 am
Crowthorne wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:01 pm
JC has gone and Starmer has got rid of the anti semite Wrong-Bailey he can at least try to get Labour back to its roots.
That's very simplistic. The situation with regard to the Labour Party and anti-semitism is complicated, but here's my take:
There is a fundamental difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. The former is a legitimate political persuasion; the latter is unacceptable racism.
Pro-Zionists have always sought to confuse the two, portraying anti-Zionism as anti-semitism, as a way of damping down criticism of the state of Israel.
There is a tradition of anti-Zionism on the Labour left, much of it coming from Jewish people themselves.
Like any large "broad church" organisation, the Labour Party has probably always had a few anti-semites among its ranks.
Jeremy Corbyn was/is an anti-Zionist but (in my judgement) was/is as far from being an anti-semite as it's possible to be.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, and his open anti-Zionism, gave anti-semites in the Labour Party the courage to come out of the woodwork and start expressing their odious views more openly.
The Labour Party leadership was not quick enough to stamp this out as strongly as they should have done, probably because they were themselves confused about the issue, seeing claims of institutional anti-semitism as attacks on their traditional, legitimate anti-Zionism.

That was the position when Kier Starmer took over from Corbyn. The Labour Party was not institutionally anti-semitic, and was improperly under attack from Zionists who sought to confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. However, they could have done more to root out a very small amount of anti-semitism among a very small number of racists in the party.

To my mind, Starmer now sees political capital in being "pro-Zionist" (as it were), in effect treating claims of institutional Labour anti-semitism as legitimate when they are not. So he has taken the opportunity to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as a win-win. He wins by establishing his credentials as someone who is going to take seriously and root out (virtually non-existent) anti-semitism; he wins by making an excuse to get shot of a political rival. It's an act of desperate opportunism.

If you look at Long-Bailey's record, it is plain to see that she is no anti-semite. But then you'd have to do a bit of background research, which might not be to your taste.

Just to point out finally that I am no supporter of Labour or any of the large political parties. Big party politics is in my mind a disaster for us all.
The problem is that Corbyn IS an anti-Semite ; anyone who has been involved with Labour over the last 40 odd years will confirm. No anti racist would ever share platforms with known racists and terrorists once. Corbyn did regularly. A genuine anti racist would say "I support the Palestinian people, but I will never share a platform or attend any functions with people who advocate race hate and murder as solutions" Corbyn never said this. Tellingly he ran a mile from his threat to sue Rachael Riley for correctly calling him a racist as he knew RR's lawyer (who sued Kate Hopkins for Jack Monroe) had a mountain of evidence he'd have to face. Also, he never did a thing about the vile race hate in Labour that grew under him (not surprising as he shares the views) Images downloaded from the far right Aryan Nation website and he does nothing , conspiracy theories and he does nothing. Long Bailey shared and refused to take down an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That's antisemitism. It is not a point about Israeli politics. I think it is Labour who are confused about what is racism and legitimate protest against Israeli politics ; why else spout the conspiracy theories of the far right ? (again this highlights the total similarities between the far right and far left) You get daft comments like "He met with elected MP's like Adams and McGuiness ; right; so a Tory meeting with elected BNP councillors is ok then ? I loathe all politicians; all self serving charlatans and hypocrites. The total lack of questioning Corbyn and the race hate he allowed to flourish has completely undermined labour. They may have to reform in order to ditch and expunge the huge stain left by Corbyn.

lanternhall
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:44 pm

lanternhall wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:32 pm
hepcat wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:36 pm
Old Bob wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:58 am


That's very simplistic. The situation with regard to the Labour Party and anti-semitism is complicated, but here's my take:
There is a fundamental difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. The former is a legitimate political persuasion; the latter is unacceptable racism.
Pro-Zionists have always sought to confuse the two, portraying anti-Zionism as anti-semitism, as a way of damping down criticism of the state of Israel.
There is a tradition of anti-Zionism on the Labour left, much of it coming from Jewish people themselves.
Like any large "broad church" organisation, the Labour Party has probably always had a few anti-semites among its ranks.
Jeremy Corbyn was/is an anti-Zionist but (in my judgement) was/is as far from being an anti-semite as it's possible to be.
Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, and his open anti-Zionism, gave anti-semites in the Labour Party the courage to come out of the woodwork and start expressing their odious views more openly.
The Labour Party leadership was not quick enough to stamp this out as strongly as they should have done, probably because they were themselves confused about the issue, seeing claims of institutional anti-semitism as attacks on their traditional, legitimate anti-Zionism.

That was the position when Kier Starmer took over from Corbyn. The Labour Party was not institutionally anti-semitic, and was improperly under attack from Zionists who sought to confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. However, they could have done more to root out a very small amount of anti-semitism among a very small number of racists in the party.

To my mind, Starmer now sees political capital in being "pro-Zionist" (as it were), in effect treating claims of institutional Labour anti-semitism as legitimate when they are not. So he has taken the opportunity to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as a win-win. He wins by establishing his credentials as someone who is going to take seriously and root out (virtually non-existent) anti-semitism; he wins by making an excuse to get shot of a political rival. It's an act of desperate opportunism.

If you look at Long-Bailey's record, it is plain to see that she is no anti-semite. But then you'd have to do a bit of background research, which might not be to your taste.

Just to point out finally that I am no supporter of Labour or any of the large political parties. Big party politics is in my mind a disaster for us all.
The problem is that Corbyn IS an anti-Semite ; anyone who has been involved with Labour over the last 40 odd years will confirm. No anti racist would ever share platforms with known racists and terrorists once. Corbyn did regularly. A genuine anti racist would say "I support the Palestinian people, but I will never share a platform or attend any functions with people who advocate race hate and murder as solutions" Corbyn never said this. Tellingly he ran a mile from his threat to sue Rachael Riley for correctly calling him a racist as he knew RR's lawyer (who sued Kate Hopkins for Jack Monroe) had a mountain of evidence he'd have to face. Also, he never did a thing about the vile race hate in Labour that grew under him (not surprising as he shares the views) Images downloaded from the far right Aryan Nation website and he does nothing , conspiracy theories and he does nothing. Long Bailey shared and refused to take down an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That's antisemitism. It is not a point about Israeli politics. I think it is Labour who are confused about what is racism and legitimate protest against Israeli politics ; why else spout the conspiracy theories of the far right ? (again this highlights the total similarities between the far right and far left) You get daft comments like "He met with elected MP's like Adams and McGuiness ; right; so a Tory meeting with elected BNP councillors is ok then ? I loathe all politicians; all self serving charlatans and hypocrites. The total lack of questioning Corbyn and the race hate he allowed to flourish has completely undermined labour. They may have to reform in order to ditch and expunge the huge stain left by Corbyn.

That too is very simplistic. In order to beat tryanny and for the greater good government's and politicians need to converse with organisations and movements whose aims and ideals they despise.
Adams and McGuiness believed that murder was justified to achieve a united Ireland.
The British government always claimed that they would never negotiate with terrorists.
The government was in constant touch with the I.R.A. throughout the troubles.


Post Reply