Well it would help if you were investigated by GCHQ for the last 20 years... (of which 13 years were under Labour FYI) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...branch-monitored-jeremy-corbyn-20-years-amid/
Not a misconception but as Ending Credits pointed out a smear based on a poor representation of events, just like the link Disequilibria posted that's attempting to smear Corbyn based on a poor representation of events. The whole back in the 80's the conservatives where calling for the hanging of Nelson Mandela was nothing of the sort, IIRC it was nothing more than a bunch of far right uni kids who published a leaflet or something and the Conservatives kicked them out afterwards. It's why smear campaigns are so pointless IMO. If we use that to judge someone then we'd be damning more than just him, we'd be damning people like Caroline Lucas and other green party members, Liberty International and Amnesty International, journalists, an MP who stood against Nigel Farage, and most comically fans of Star Trek and The X-Files.
Roll on Friday, when my mailbox will most likely be free of pamphlets full of empty promises from assorted groups of sociopaths.
As I live in an area where we residents are considered plebs for the most part we are not bothered by leaflets, pamphlets or visits from local activists. In my 30+ years of living here I can count on one hand the times a politician be it local or Scottish or national has knocked on my door. Oh the joys of being as Rab C Nesbit called it scum.
Never had a visit from any party rep/MPs no matter where I've lived in England or Scotland. The only thing I ever get is scary leaflets with pictures that you can never really tell whether they're for a local party member or warning you of someone in the area who is on some sort of list.
Note maajid nawaz, Not all former terrorist (sympathisers) are equal. How do you feel about the russia investigation corky? He's not merely had to rub against dodgy people, he has supported their causes. I'm not holding a different standard it is a new news story, I posted it. Plus offering a bung to not stand is a more serious offence than the more recent stuff.
Same, here, and IDS used to 'live' (token constituency I-totally-actually-live-here-honest-guv house) opposite!
Here in darkest Wales:- A work colleague said he had a Labour wonk on the doorstep last night, banging on about Health & Education cuts. The wonk went quiet & shuffled off, when my colleague pointed out that both services have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and now have nothing to do with Westminster!
IIRC, the Welsh Assembly manages distribution of funds, but actual allocation of funds nationally is a combination of the Assembly and Westminster (or in practice "here's what you're getting, shove off") of about 95%, with the remaining 5% being local Welsh taxation (mainly business rates). Labour having very close to an absolute majority in the Assembly (one seat short, all other parties would need to combine to outvote) they could easily promise and deliver on local NHS funding distribution and national block funding allocation.
Sorry you've lost me, what does a British activist, author, columnist, radio host and politician have to do with terrorist sympathisers and a Russia investigation. The problem with the "supported their causes" accusation is there's no evidence of that, at least no evidence that I've found of him supporting violent organisations and individuals, if anything all evidence points to him sticking firmly to his pacifist nature despite overwhelming public pressure, something that can't be said of most politicians who seem change their mind like the wind at the slightest hint of public discord. FTFY.
So inviting Gerry Adams to Parliament two weeks after the Brighton Bombing wasn't supporting a member of a violent organisation? And before you say it was to do with the Peace Process, how come he only ever met Republicans and not Unionists as well?
Up here in Scotland it matters not what has been devolved to the Scottish parliament as the SNP and Nichola Sturgeon in particular because no other member of the SNP government is allowed to voice any other opinion but the hers, will state and every opportunity that Westminster is to blame for everything.
The unionist terrorists were colluding with the UK government to murder UK and Irish citizens they didn't like. They weren't enemies of the state; They were an asset.
Last time i checked Gerry Adams is a Sinn Féin politician and not a member of a violent organisation, he's repeatedly said he wasn't a member of the IRA, the violent organisation i assume you're referring to. Why would he invite unionists to a meeting that discussed prison conditions and the rehabilitation of prisoners? (afaik) hardly any unionists were being locked up.
You do know Gerry Adams has been accused by former IRA people of having been an IRA member? http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ra-for-years-everybody-knows-it-34173463.html Of course given that the dude making that particular accusation was an IRA member himself as well as a snitch and a convicted murderer doesn't exactly make him a credible source, but there are a bit too many people out there claiming Gerry Adams was in the IRA for the allegation to be dismissed entirely. On another note, the Guardian is predicting some hefty losses for the SNP: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-independence-nicola-sturgeon-angus-robertson
Well there is all these too: You're claiming "it's just smears" do you treat all smears equally? In relation to maajid it's to point out that some former sympathisers and terrorists are now fighting the groups they were linked to the hardest. Some you can't even get a specific condemnation of a group out of....some have a propective chancellor a certain group used to call "the quarter master"....not to name names or anything.... The Green Party was offered a £250,000 inducement not to stand a candidate Matter for police
I do know and i personally believe he was a member, however if we're to condemn someone we need something more concrete to go on than my feelings or what other people claim, locking people up based on what we think and not what we can prove isn't perhaps the best way to go about things. It's one of the things that Corbyn claims, that randomly killing, locking people up, and mistreating them leads to the creation of more extremists, and i have to say for me that seems obvious, if someone accused me of something i hadn't done and that lead to me being jailed and possibly tortured I'd be pretty peeved with the authorities. It's why Corbyn had arranged a meeting with two suspected IRA members months before the Brighton bombing, because he wanted to discuss what could be done to reduce the likelihood of people becoming radicalised from their stay in prison. Most of those are prime examples of what I've just said, are we suggesting that someone is guilty by association? Because if we are we'd be locking up a lot of innocent people who maybe, just maybe, trying to find a non violent solution.
