Which conservative. You mean local councillor maria gatland Again there is a difference between turning on an organisation and becoming an opponent of it and still not being able to condemn it. Invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing. Attended Bloody Sunday commemoration with bomber Brendan McKenna. Attended meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond McCartney. Hosted IRA linked Mitchell McLaughlin in parliament. Spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson. Attended Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly. Chaired Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan MacFarlane. Attended Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists. Stood in minute’s silence for IRA gunmen shot dead by the SAS. Refused to condemn the IRA in Sky News interview. Refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time. Refused to condemn IRA violence in BBC radio interview. Signed EDM after IRA Poppy massacre massacre blaming Britain for the deaths. Arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bomber’s co-defendants. Lobbied government to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers. Attended Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain. Hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant. Hired another aide closely linked to several convicted IRA terrorists. Heavily involved with IRA sympathising newspaper London Labour Briefing. Put up £20,000 bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin McAliskey. Didn’t support IRA ceasefire. Said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends“. Called for Hamas to be removed from terror banned list. Called Hamas “serious and hard-working“. Attended wreath-laying at grave of Munich massacre terrorist. Attended conference with Hamas and PFLP. Photographed smiling with Hezbollah flag. Attended rally with Hezbollah and Al-Muhajiroun. Repeatedly shared platforms with PFLP plane hijacker. Hired aide who praised Hamas’ “spirit of resistance“. Accepted £20,000 for state TV channel of terror-sponsoring Iranian regime. Opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS. Defended rights of fighters returning from Syria. Said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted. Compared fighters returning from Syria to Nelson Mandela. Said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a “tragedy“. Wouldn’t sanction drone strike to kill ISIS leader. Voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria. Opposed shoot to kill. Attended event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC. Signed letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects. Wrote letter in support of conman accused of fundraising for ISIS. Spoke of “friendship” with Mo Kozbar, who called for destruction of Israel. Attended event with Abdullah Djaballah, who called for holy war against UK. Called drone strikes against terrorists “obscene”. Boasted about “opposing anti-terror legislation”. Said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are “strange”. Accepted £5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich. Accepted £2,800 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation Interpal. Called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of Interpal, a “very good friend”. Accepted two more trips from the pro-Hamas group PRC. Speaker at conference hosted by pro-Hamas group MEMO. Met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh several times. Hosted meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad. Patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign – marches attended by Hezbollah. Compared Israel to ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Said we should not make “value judgements” about Britons who fight for ISIS. Received endorsement from Hamas. Attended event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani. Chaired Stop the War, who praised “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS. Praised Raed Salah, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel. Signed letter defending jihadist advocacy group Cage. Met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers. Shared platform with representative of extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Compared ISIS to US military in interview on Russia Today. Opposed proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Attended conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers. Attended Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of destruction of Israel. Supported Hamas and ISIS-linked Viva Palestina group. Attended protest with Islamic extremist Moazzam Begg. Made the “case for Iran” at event hosted by Khomeinist group. Photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings. Photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops. Said Hamas should “have tea with the Queen”. Attended ‘Meet the Resistance’ event with Hezbollah MP Hussein El Haj. Attended event with Haifa Zangana, who praised Palestinian “mujahideen”. Defended the infamous anti-Semitic Hamas supporter Stephen Sizer. Attended event with pro-Hamas and Hezbollah group Naturei Karta. Backed Holocaust denying anti-Zionist extremist Paul Eisen. Photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences. Mocked “anti-terror hysteria” while opposing powers for security services. Named on speakers list for conference with Hamas sympathiser Ismail Patel. Criticised drone strike that killed Jihadi John. Said the 7/7 bombers had been denied “hope and opportunity”. Said 9/11 was “manipulated” to make it look like bin Laden was responsible. Failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks. Called Columbian terror group M-19 “comrades”. Blamed beheading of Alan Henning on Britain. Gave speech in support of Gaddafi regime. Signed EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic. Blamed Tunisia terror attack on “austerity”. Voted against banning support for the IRA. Voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times during the Troubles. Voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11. Voted against stricter punishments for being a member of a terror group. Voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism. Voted against banning al-Qaeda. Voted against outlawing the glorification of terror. Voted against control orders. Voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terrorism. Quite something when you put it all down in one place… [1] I'm suggesting he hasn't seen an anti British terror group he doesn't like, I'm suggesting it would be stupid to elect someone who has given political aid and comfort to HM's enemies.
Personally i can't say i do, however basing our justice system on what you or i believe probably isn't a good idea, we did that with suspected IRA members and we've done it with suspected ISIS et al members. Obviously theirs two trains of thought on the subject, should we condemn suspected "bad guys" based on what we suspect but don't have evidence of and risk those people becoming radicalised, or should we treat them the same as other "bad guys" and base our condemnation on credible evidence. Indeed, it's a matter for the police and until they're found guilty or innocent in a court of law, if it gets that far, everything remains an allegation, we can't just go around locking people up based on, at best, flimsy evidence, well we can but it tends to make people feel rather aggrieved at what they see as an unjust system, it tends to make people feel their being treated unfairly, it tends to make people want to fight back against the system that's treated them so harshly. EDIT: OK that's changed a lot from when you first posted it, there's now a wall of mind numbing text and something about anti British terror group. Also may i suggest you cross reference the information you're getting from an alt-right, drink driving, drug taking, conspirators website with more credible sources.
Nothing to do with the justice system. I'm saying he's unfit for office. Yeah admitting you received an offer is just an allegation... Whoever offered it has committed a criminal offence. Alt right? we were talking about smears... stop telling porkies. Guido is frequently used by the BBC, SKY news and others. They are an incredibly credible source who consistently break exclusive stories. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2008/10/30/can-we-trust-the-internet-new-book/
And you're perfectly entitled to that opinion, however I'd say if you're making that judgment based on guilt by association then you seem to have double standards coming out of your wazoo. And you know this how exactly? Has the case been to court yet, have they been found guilty in that court, look you can believe whatever you like but we have a legal system for a reason, we have laws for a reason, we don't just judge people guilty based on trial by media or popular opinion. It's fine for you to form your own opinion and pass your own judgment but you have to understand that not everyone may agree with your opinion or your judgment, that doesn't make you right and them wrong, it doesn't mean their stupid, blind, or any other pejorative you may wish to throw at them, it just means they've come to a different conclusion than you. So because a website is features on the BBC, SKY news and others means it's not alt-right? Because if so does that mean because people like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson who've featured on such programs aren't alt-right. Order-Order and Paul Staines may have broken some exclusive stories but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, he's not exactly without controversy and Guido Fawkes is not exactly an unbiased source. Obviously you're free to read whatever you like, however like i suggested maybe it would be a good idea to cross reference what you're reading to ascertain the validity of it. Also while that blog post from the LSE back in 2008 may have been accurate at the time things have moved on in the last decade, you only have to read some of the comments so see how far Guido Fawkes and his audience has fallen since then.
It doesn't matter if you are biased as long as the facts in the story are true and the bias is known. and they are. Also every story I've posted is verifiable with a quick google search. Prove he's alt right. This is just a total lie, with zero evidence. Also you probably don't even know what alt right is. Because caroline lucas admitted they recieved an offer on the daily effing politics. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0000-not-to-stand-in-richmond-park-byelection The BBC and others do not use those tools as a source.
Look at this traitorous old hag shaking the hand of a senior republican and known IRA commander, and smiling as she does it, on multiple separate occasions!!! We had better make sure she doesn't get in to any position of power having consorted with HM's enemies.
The problem is many of the things Paul Staines blogs about are not true, that's what smears are, they're based on a poor representation of events. Another problem is that most people are not aware of Paul Staines bias, i mean the guy used to work for the Committee for a Free Britain which was funded by James Goldsmith, Rupert Murdoch and David Hart. The guy even says, and according to your standards that makes him guilty, that And he admits he was a member of the Federation of Conservative Students, the group who wore 'Hang Mandela' badges and by your standards that makes him guilty by association. Paul Staines attempting to smear Corbyn for being a terrorist sympathises is even more laughable when you consider Staines actually ran guns for terrorists... So while you may seem him as a credible source in my books he has zero credibility. So in other words hearsay, that's not exactly evidence, like i said you need something more than someone say they received an offer, you need proof that they accepted that offer. Look you maybe willing to condemn someone based on nothing more than what they said but our legal system operates a higher standard of proof than just what people say. Yes they do, Infowars and Breitbart have featured on the BBC many times, i mean during the run up to the US elections they had interviews with people from Breitbart. Late EDIT as i don't want to turn this thread into a Corky vs Disequilibria battle: The thing is he has condemned it, all be it in a roundabout way, i would guess the only reason you're either refusing, or going to reject that claim, is because it helps push a certain narrative. Obviously people are free to believe what they like however what's more likely, that someone who explicitly criticised the IRA’s use of terrorism on many occasions, whose campaigned against the use of violence for 35 years, whose been awarded The Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award for, and i quote. That someone like that has spent most of his adult life attempting to facilitate some degree of communication with terrorists, just like Mo Mowlam famously said some years later that he was talking to terrorists, or that all these years he's been a secret terrorist sympathiser.
The Monster Raving Loony party goes under the name of SNP up here in Scotland, not quite as colourful as the English variant but made up by being twice as mad. I did not think it was possible for the BBC World news to get any more dumbed down but they have, with images, shown us plebs exactly what we need to do once we step inside a voting booth. Mind you this was from a channel where the presenter told us viewers one day last week that the reason only around 46% of Americans have passports is that the USA is so great why would they want to visit any other country?
I'd wager that a number of the non-passport holding Americans do actually believe that. From a 'holiday' perspective, you can experience pretty much anything within the US border, so I can certainly see why they might not bother. Plus, everyone speaks roughly the same language whether you're melting in Miami, skiing in Colorado, or enjoying the lovely flatness of Illinois. Okay, Florida is apparently flatter, but I've already used Florida.
What has the flatness or the terrain got to do with owning a passport, then again given the average size of our cousins accross the pond I would imagine that the flatter the better.
That was my first choice, too, but I thought I'd google it just to be sure. I ended up reading a fairly length NatGeo article about Kansas being in the top ten, but not the top of a 'flatness' check. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140314-flattest-states-geography-topography-science/ My point wasn't that 'the flatter the better' so much asthat the US has a huge variety of geographical setups suitable for different things - All without leaving the country. I can see why someone might consider this a reason not to bother getting a passport. Heaven knows, if I didn't use mine I wouldn't bother anymore. I've seen several US states (lived there), Jamacia, Dominican Republic, Spain, Germany, France, Southern Ireland, Canada, and doubtless a few others I was too young to remember. Not to mention the ubiquitous destinations in the UK. Cornwall/Devon, Wales, Scotland, and so on. For us on our little island, most of that involves flying to another country. To see all of those kinds of places in the US (In terms of climate, geography, etcetera)? Continental flights, or a drive.
To be fair, this can only be a good thing - some first-time voters have never been to a polling station and have no idea what awaits them, so why not give them an insight. I've never been to a polling station in my life.
You mean this: Well it's lucky I'm not asking for corbyn to be jailed. Not as a source for their stories. Interviewing someone is different This THUSRDAY..THURSDAY.... THURSDAY... COME DOWN TO THE BIT TECH ARENA TO SEE THE BATTLE OF WORDS NO ONE WANTS TO READ..... It's just another "formula of words"... "I condemn all terrorism... blah... blah... blah." Also note it is not just the IRA There's far more evidence of corbyn being compromised than there is of trump so far.
No, I mean exactly what i quoted from when he was interviewed, i mean this: Indeed, you're just posting links to a smear campaign that's based on a poor representation of events and facts, if you're not willing to defend those poor representations of events and facts then maybe you shouldn't be posting them. And AFAIK the BBC doesn't use Paul Staines as a source, they do what most responsible journalist do, and something you should be doing, they cross reference the supposed evidence in an attempt to validate the claims so they can, as far as possible, report facts. They do that because unlike Paul Staines they have to think about slander and libel, that unlike Paul Staines they have to worry about thinks like the truth, and unlike Paul Staines their not drink driving, drug taking, conspirators who've supplied guns to terrorists. Quiet, although maybe that could have been humorous if it wasn't all in CAPS, as it is it comes across as being rather passive aggressive. So does all terrorism for some reason exclude the IRA? As for evidence so far you've provided none, or at least none from credible sources. You've also failed to answer my question about what's more likely. That someone who explicitly criticised the IRA’s use of terrorism on many occasions, whose campaigned against the use of violence for 35 years, whose been awarded The Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award, whose spent most of his adult life attempting to facilitate some degree of communication with terrorists, if all of that is more believable or that he's been a secret terrorist sympathiser all these years.
Oh come on. I followed some of those links and the way that they distort or take things out of context is breath taking. I expected better from you. Much better. Perhaps instead of demanding that Corbyn is jailed, you should ask yourself why he isn't. You should ask yourself why even the Conservatives don't go where that website went that you quoted. Son, I is disappoint.
