Jump to content
 
 
 
 
Sign in to follow this  
alexscottislegend

No Deal Brexit

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

So you excuse Thatcher then for meeting with them?

No. I wouldn't have had her or her Government meet them, though sometimes when in Government you have to hold your nose and attempt to stop the troubles. 

 

The thing is, Corbyn has never been in a position of power. He was meeting them in his capacity as a supporter of their aims and a friend of their struggle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Hahahaha!

 

Great stuff.

 

After paying little attention I take a look at the last page of the thread only to discover alexscottisliar receiving a reprimand for letting his fevered imagination get the better of him!

He’s not a liar, just mistaken. Quite often some might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scott7 said:

He’s not a liar, just mistaken. Quite often some might say.

You might be taking generosity to a place where it has no chance of surviving 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victims of IRA terror tell Jeremy Corbyn to apologise

October 13 2019, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

The Labour leader has repeatedly failed to condemn the IRA’s terrorist campaign of the 1970s and 1980s
The Labour leader has repeatedly failed to condemn the IRA’s terrorist campaign of the 1970s and 1980sTOLGA AKMEN
Share
Save

Nearly 40 victims of IRA atrocities have called on Jeremy Corbyn to apologise for his support for Irish republicanism, accusing the Labour leader of “giving succour” to terrorists.

 

In an open letter to mark the 35th anniversary of the Brighton bombing, the families of the dead demand that he condemn the terrorist campaign waged by the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

Corbyn has repeatedly failed to do so, saying only that he condemns “all bombing”.

 

The letter has been signed by 38 people who lost loved ones or were injured in 25 attacks that collectively killed more than 100 people and wounded more than 750.

 

They include relatives of the dead in some of the IRA’s worst atrocities, including the bombings at Hyde Park, Warrington, Enniskillen and Shankill Road, Belfast.

 

The letter describes the 1984 bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the Conservative Party conference, which left five people dead and 31 injured, as a “direct assault on our democracy”.

 

It adds: “We ask you to apologise for a career spent giving succour to violent republicanism when you should have been denouncing it. The first role of a prime minister is to keep his people safe. How can you expect people to vote for you if you fail to make this clear?”

 

The letter comes as a new report lays bare the extent of the Labour leader’s links to those who backed violent republicanism, including details of his parliamentary meeting with convicted IRA terrorists just days after the attack.

 

The report from Mainstream, a new campaign group against extremism in politics, also reveals evidence of Corbyn’s closeness to London Labour Briefing, which ran an infamous editorial after the Brighton attack claiming that “the British only sit up and take

notice when they are bombed into it.”

 

The dossier also details how, as the finance chairman of the GLC, John McDonnell signed off a £53,000 grant to the pro-Sinn Fein Troops Out movement, of which Corbyn was a member.

 

In 2015 Corbyn was asked five times to condemn IRA violence unequivocally during a BBC radio interview. On each occasion he refused.

In the letter, the families write: “Many politicians on all sides . . . have worked tirelessly to secure and sustain peace in Northern Ireland and have unequivocally condemned the IRA’s acts of terror . . . When asked to condemn the IRA’s terror campaign, you refused to do so.”

 

A poll, commissioned by Mainstream last month, found that more Labour members — 32% — blame the British government for the bombings than they do republican terrorists such as the IRA (27%).

 

Ian Austin, Mainstream’s founder, said: “Thirty five years ago . . . the IRA tried to murder British democracy. Less than two weeks afterwards . . . Jeremy Corbyn invited two convicted IRA terrorists to the Commons.”

 

He added: “Corbyn has often claimed that his involvement in Northern Irish politics was part of a search for peace. But there appears to be no record of Corbyn ever working with any unionist or loyalist group. Any real peace campaigner knows you have to talk to both sides. He is not fit to lead . . . our country.”

 

A Labour spokesman said: “Jeremy has made it absolutely clear that he didn’t and doesn’t support the IRA, and that what he always wants is to work for peace and respect for human rights.

 

“He has also spoken about how the peace process in Northern Ireland has been a model for other countries.”

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/victims-of-ira-terror-tell-jeremy-corbyn-to-apologise-dn32lr8bj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 14:32, ranger_syntax said:

Hahahaha!

 

Great stuff.

 

After paying little attention I take a look at the last page of the thread only to discover alexscottisliar receiving a reprimand for letting his fevered imagination get the better of him!

Can we ALL stay away from the personal insults please ?

 

”alexscottisliar” is personal and shouldn’t be used.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, craig said:

Can we ALL stay away from the personal insults please ?

 

”alexscottisliar” is personal and shouldn’t be used.

 

Thanks

It’s shocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to Rees Mogg we voted to leave because EU law has too much power over UK law, except now when it should be used to supercede UK law in order to cancel out something he disagrees with, which was passed by a parliament he wants more sovereignty for except when he votes to close it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it all debate on Brexit is restricted to economic consequences, almost every doom-laden prediction of which has been proven wrong. When we voted in the referendum there were a number of key issues but discussion of all but one of those has been systematically suppressed. Why is that? Why has the ongoing migrant problem effectively been erased from media reporting? Why is the future direction and structure of the EU never debated? Why is the democratic deficit of an EU elite insulated from electorate scrutiny never examined? Why has the aspiration of national sovereignty been discretely tagged as a far right ideology? Why is the trading potential of a free UK given so little credence?

 

Brexit isn't ever going to be a smooth ride but that doesn't mean there aren't real long term advantages to being a free UK. I just wish our politicians and politically motivated media would offer people a balanced and objective analysis but shallow tribalism is all we see day after day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bill said:

Why is it all debate on Brexit is restricted to economic consequences, almost every doom-laden prediction of which has been proven wrong. When we voted in the referendum there were a number of key issues but discussion of all but one of those has been systematically suppressed. Why is that? Why has the ongoing migrant problem effectively been erased from media reporting? Why is the future direction and structure of the EU never debated? Why is the democratic deficit of an EU elite insulated from electorate scrutiny never examined? Why has the aspiration of national sovereignty been discretely tagged as a far right ideology? Why is the trading potential of a free UK given so little credence?

 

Brexit isn't ever going to be a smooth ride but that doesn't mean there aren't real long term advantages to being a free UK. I just wish our politicians and politically motivated media would offer people a balanced and objective analysis but shallow tribalism is all we see day after day.

Well if we had a true state broadcast company, then that should be purely neutral. What we have through is a ideologically driven state broadcaster that is funded by a public that it largely detests. 

 

It should go free to air like the commercial channels or subscription only, or a combo of both - so anyone who wants its output can subscribe and you would not need the outdated funding mechanism that prevents people from watching any TV without it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.