Jeremy Corbyn.

[Flex Your Head]

presumably somewhere left wing bias, as it focuses on the right wing press. it is on the money, all papers and news outlets do this, with all politicians, or whoever else is the source. some are better than others, but not along political lines.

Not along political lines? Really? Clearly never read the Daily Mail or The Telegraph despite your forum signature.

It looks like this is from Private Eye, and if so, your presumption of left wing bias is way off.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not along political lines? Really? Clearly never read the Daily Mail or The Telegraph despite your forum signature.

would you say that the Mirror, the Guardian etc never ever misquote or misrepresent someone for the purpose of a sensationalist headline? of course not. some do it more or worse than others - Mirror would be more sensationalist than Guardian for example.

 

[pb21]

Not along political lines? Really? Clearly never read the Daily Mail or The Telegraph despite your forum signature.

It looks like this is from Private Eye, and if so, your presumption of left wing bias is way off.

Yes it is from Private Eye, which always points out hypocrisy, corruption, lies, half truths and exaggeration across all the political spectrum.

 

[pb21]

Yes it is from Private Eye, which always points out hypocrisy, corruption, lies, half truths and exaggeration across all the political spectrum.

Edit: So yes beorhthelm is well of in their judgement, most likely not for the first time.

 

[cunning fergus]

No. An internationalist would want all borders dropped not a few select ones that would risk impoverishing the poorest members of an area. Which is why an Ethical socialist would object also n the grounds of supporting the poorest ad most vulnerable in a community.

Lord Bracknells view is Stalinist.

Over ride the wishes of the people once by flooding the country with Foreigners(for what ever reason), then when it begins to get out of controll overide the people again by abolishing planning laws to reiforce the agenda they didn't want in the first place. No doubt any effective opposition to this would be met with advocacy of reeducation camps or gulags.

A democratic socialist would aquire a mandate first and try to win arquements rather than browbeating people, so would a liberal socialist.

I am not sure what you are, I'll stick with a f"""ing tory.

I think the key here is for what purpose are the borders to be dropped.

If it is to facilitate a cooperation between the workers of different socialist entities, (i.e. entities run by the workers for the workers) then this policy would be fine.............aftr all its a step that undermines nationalism, which would reduce the potential for war between workers of different states.

If however the borders are being dropped for the purposes of exploiting the workers, a policy being imposed undemocratically by the bourgaisie (bankers, monetarists and corporatists) and the polictical lackeys, then this is a different proposition altogether.

This is why Corbyn and other socailists are ultimately philiosophically opposed to the EU.

The EU as a political entity has outlawed socialism and public ownership of state assets the derive "commercial benefit" (see clause 37 of Lisbon Treaty I think) and therefore we are back to clause IV and the implications of of TTIP.

The EU is a capitalist wet dream, freedom of movement is just a means of exploiting workers in particular states where they would otherwise have a chance of protecting their pay etc.

True socialism will not be achieved by having no borders, states need to be socialist first...............then they can drop the borders.

 

[Brian Fantana]

The bloke can say what he likes, he hasn't got a chance in hades of ever being PM.

 

[Albumen]

The bloke can say what he likes, he hasn't got a chance in hades of ever being PM.

Surely it all depends on how succussful he is as a party leader first (if he gets in). A lot can change in 5 years, and the public will have 4.5 years of Corbyn vs Cameron (or Cameron's successor should he not handle real debate).

 

[Buzzer]

This is brilliant, where did you find it. It would be full on hilarious if it wasn't so close to the mark.

I've got to confess that I'm struggling to see the hyperbole in some of these and in others Private Eye is being deliberately obtuse in ascribing the comments to the headlines.

5th August Daily Express. They've snipped the most important comment. What Corbyn said was ""If he's committed a war crime, yes. Everyone who's committed a war crime should be. I think it was an illegal war, I'm confident about that, indeed [former UN secretary general] Kofi Annan confirmed it was an illegal war, and therefore he has to explain to that. Is he going to be tried for it, I don't know. Could he be tried for it? Possibly." and from the heading there was this subheading: "TONY BLAIR should stand trial for war crimes over the invasion of Iraq, the frontrunner in the Labour leadership said last night." http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/596193/Jeremy-Corbyn-Tony-Blair-stand-trial-Iraq-war-crimes

6th August Daily Mail. He IS saying he would do a deal with SNP on a supply arrangement (as Miliband and Sturgeon both said they would in May). No great shock there.

9th August Independent. Private Eye playing hard and loose with accuracy, the ACTUAL headline was: "Jeremy Corbyn to 'bring back Clause IV': Contender pledges to bury New Labour with commitment to public ownership of industry" and from the body of the article: "I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring Clause Four as it was originally written or it’s a different one". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-public-ownership-of-industry-10446982.html The headline says EXACTLY what Corbyn said.

11th August Telegraph. Once again, Private Eye being cute here. The article is about an interview Corbyn did with Russia Today, the Putin mouthpiece and Corbyn most definitely DOES hint at closer ties with Russia. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Corbyn-surges-ahead-in-Labour-leadership.html


That's the first 4 examples of 'lies, exaggerations and misreporting' as listed by Private Eye and from what I can see they are all piss-poor examples.

A quick look at the next one about Corbyn's refusing a Privy Council position - the article states quite clearly: "However The Telegraph has been told that Mr Corbyn remains a “staunch republican” and is expected to turn down the position on the Privy Council. “I don’t think it is Jeremy’s sort of thing, becoming a Privy Counsellor. As a person you can’t imagine him doing it,” one source close to Mr Corbyn said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ivy-Council-if-he-wins-Labour-leadership.html

...so Private Eye have ascribed another comment to the entirely accurate headline in order to make it look like the Telegraph is putting 2 and 2 together to make 5.

...another piss-poor example. Sorry, it's neither brilliant nor hilarious.

 

[Buzzer]

However this did make me chuckle. From Buzzfeed's political correspondent (they've got a political correspondent?):

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/labour-prepares-for-life-under-jeremy-corbyn#.kdbRpZXg4

Some Labour figures are now convinced that if Corbyn wins power, he could well stay in place until the 2020 election. His ability to inspire a grassroots movement who can knock on doors ahead of crucial elections across the UK next spring is important. Whether he can win over enough voters – rather than party members – is another matter.

“We’ve had shit leaders before and we’ve survived,” a longstanding adviser said. “This is politics; anything can happen and we’ve got to do the best we can.”

 

[Soulman]

Probably all paper talk and anti Jeremy Corbyn, i don't suppose he campaigned to get the Embassy bombers freed, or supported the IRA, or wants to give the Falklands back to the Argies, or that he will do a deal with the SNP.........must be rubbish.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

I've got to confess that I'm struggling to see the hyperbole in some of these and in others Private Eye is being deliberately obtuse in ascribing the comments to the headlines.

5th August Daily Express. They've snipped the most important comment. What Corbyn said was ""If he's committed a war crime, yes. Everyone who's committed a war crime should be. I think it was an illegal war, I'm confident about that, indeed [former UN secretary general] Kofi Annan confirmed it was an illegal war, and therefore he has to explain to that. Is he going to be tried for it, I don't know. Could he be tried for it? Possibly." and from the heading there was this subheading: "TONY BLAIR should stand trial for war crimes over the invasion of Iraq, the frontrunner in the Labour leadership said last night." http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/596193/Jeremy-Corbyn-Tony-Blair-stand-trial-Iraq-war-crimes

6th August Daily Mail. He IS saying he would do a deal with SNP on a supply arrangement (as Miliband and Sturgeon both said they would in May). No great shock there.

9th August Independent. Private Eye playing hard and loose with accuracy, the ACTUAL headline was: "Jeremy Corbyn to 'bring back Clause IV': Contender pledges to bury New Labour with commitment to public ownership of industry" and from the body of the article: "I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring Clause Four as it was originally written or it’s a different one". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-public-ownership-of-industry-10446982.html The headline says EXACTLY what Corbyn said.

11th August Telegraph. Once again, Private Eye being cute here. The article is about an interview Corbyn did with Russia Today, the Putin mouthpiece and Corbyn most definitely DOES hint at closer ties with Russia. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Corbyn-surges-ahead-in-Labour-leadership.html


That's the first 4 examples of 'lies, exaggerations and misreporting' as listed by Private Eye and from what I can see they are all piss-poor examples.

A quick look at the next one about Corbyn's refusing a Privy Council position - the article states quite clearly: "However The Telegraph has been told that Mr Corbyn remains a “staunch republican” and is expected to turn down the position on the Privy Council. “I don’t think it is Jeremy’s sort of thing, becoming a Privy Counsellor. As a person you can’t imagine him doing it,” one source close to Mr Corbyn said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ivy-Council-if-he-wins-Labour-leadership.html

...so Private Eye have ascribed another comment to the entirely accurate headline in order to make it look like the Telegraph is putting 2 and 2 together to make 5.

...another piss-poor example. Sorry, it's neither brilliant nor hilarious.

Lookalike :

Buzzer : Satirical

Eye : Boorish

 

[looney]

I think the key here is for what purpose are the borders to be dropped.

If it is to facilitate a cooperation between the workers of different socialist entities, (i.e. entities run by the workers for the workers) then this policy would be fine.............aftr all its a step that undermines nationalism, which would reduce the potential for war between workers of different states.

If however the borders are being dropped for the purposes of exploiting the workers, a policy being imposed undemocratically by the bourgaisie (bankers, monetarists and corporatists) and the polictical lackeys, then this is a different proposition altogether.

This is why Corbyn and other socailists are ultimately philiosophically opposed to the EU.

The EU as a political entity has outlawed socialism and public ownership of state assets the derive "commercial benefit" (see clause 37 of Lisbon Treaty I think) and therefore we are back to clause IV and the implications of of TTIP.

The EU is a capitalist wet dream, freedom of movement is just a means of exploiting workers in particular states where they would otherwise have a chance of protecting their pay etc.

True socialism will not be achieved by having no borders, states need to be socialist first...............then they can drop the borders.

Cant fault the logic in that. although drawing a strand to call it a capitalist entity can just as well be done to call it a communist entity. The trick is who are all the politicians and Commisars working for?

Although the Maastrict treaty lays out the provision for 2 armies, one for external and one for internal security you could say it is one step from Facism as well.

 

[cunning fergus]

Cant fault the logic in that. although drawing a strand to call it a capitalist entity can just as well be done to call it a communist entity. The trick is who are all the politicians and Commisars working for?

Although the Maastrict treaty lays out the provision for 2 armies, one for external and one for internal security you could say it is one step from Facism as well.

Couldn't agree more, I don't think it's a coincidence that the EU despite being capitalist in its outlook runs itself with a soviet style approach to dealing with the "proletariat". The election of the head of the commission ( the law makers) is essentially a politburo...........far from democratic plebiscite.

Developing a docile liberal minded public in the EU who have total faith in the benevolence of the EU institutions is key to its survival, these threads regularly demonstrate through the debates that their are many whose faith to the EU is unshaken despite its evident hand in multiple catastrophes.

To think that those who are in charge in the EU care about the proletariat beyond keeping them docile, you only need to look at those in charge.......individuals like Peter Sutherland, current non exec for Goldman Sachs, long time banker, a member of the steering committee of the Bilderburg Group and now UN High Priest for migration..........what the fukk eh? This is what he thinks..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

If we had a revolution, this is the kind of shit the workers should track down..............I would gladly dance round the fire in Brussels with his head on a pole.

After his trial by the revolutionary workers committee as he is lead the guillotine...............he would cry out "but we provided you with a minimum wage, what more did you want?"

Quite.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Sorry, I find it neither brilliant nor hilarious.

Just corrected it for you, a lot less simpler and better for your blood pressure

 

[Buzzer]

Just corrected it for you, a lot less simpler and better for your blood pressure

Strange inference, even stranger response. And there I was thinking that you liked looking beyond headlines at what was really said.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

An eloquent giant at ease amongst flailing pygmies

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I find Corbyn's anti NATO, and defence policy truely frightening.

So much so, that I'd be forced to vote for Boris - and I really dislike Boris

 

[Soulman]

Probably all paper talk and anti Jeremy Corbyn, i don't suppose he campaigned to get the Embassy bombers freed, or supported the IRA, or wants to give the Falklands back to the Argies, or that he will do a deal with the SNP.........must be rubbish.

And..........
"A Guardian contributor, Richard Seymour, has sparked outrage today after dismissing a British war hero’s comments on the Falklands Islands, in which he attacked Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn for planning to “surrender” to Argentine demands. Seymour slammed war veteran Simon Weston on Facebook, claiming, “If he knew anything, he’s still have his face”. Weston was horrifically burned in the Argentine attack on the RFA Sir Galahad in 1982.


Seymour, who is the author of the Lenin’s Tomb blog was responding to the article published by the Telegraph, posted by a Facebook friend of his. In the article, Weston noted of Mr Corbyn’s plans: “It is a repugnant idea. I don’t see why it should happen given that the Argentines never had the islands. They have no right to them.


“It could cause civil war again by emboldening the Argentinians. It frightens me enormously because he claims to be such a supporter of democratic freedoms while what he is suggesting throwing the Falkland islanders right to democracy out.


“I don’t ever see him winning an election because his policies and his attitudes just won’t wash with the British public.”

Seymour didn’t quite see it that way. But instead of responding to Mr Weston’s points, he wrote beneath the article: “Seriously, who gives a shit what Simon Weston thinks about anything? If he knew anything he’d still have his face.”

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

And..........
"A Guardian contributor, Richard Seymour, has sparked outrage today after dismissing a British war hero’s comments on the Falklands Islands, in which he attacked Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn for planning to “surrender” to Argentine demands. Seymour slammed war veteran Simon Weston on Facebook, claiming, “If he knew anything, he’s still have his face”. Weston was horrifically burned in the Argentine attack on the RFA Sir Galahad in 1982.


Seymour, who is the author of the Lenin’s Tomb blog was responding to the article published by the Telegraph, posted by a Facebook friend of his. In the article, Weston noted of Mr Corbyn’s plans: “It is a repugnant idea. I don’t see why it should happen given that the Argentines never had the islands. They have no right to them.


“It could cause civil war again by emboldening the Argentinians. It frightens me enormously because he claims to be such a supporter of democratic freedoms while what he is suggesting throwing the Falkland islanders right to democracy out.


“I don’t ever see him winning an election because his policies and his attitudes just won’t wash with the British public.”

Seymour didn’t quite see it that way. But instead of responding to Mr Weston’s points, he wrote beneath the article: “Seriously, who gives a shit what Simon Weston thinks about anything? If he knew anything he’d still have his face.”

That is truely sickening by this Seymour disgrace.

 

[pastafarian]

And..........
"A Guardian contributor, Richard Seymour, has sparked outrage today after dismissing a British war hero’s comments on the Falklands Islands, in which he attacked Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn for planning to “surrender” to Argentine demands. Seymour slammed war veteran Simon Weston on Facebook, claiming, “If he knew anything, he’s still have his face”. Weston was horrifically burned in the Argentine attack on the RFA Sir Galahad in 1982.


Seymour, who is the author of the Lenin’s Tomb blog was responding to the article published by the Telegraph, posted by a Facebook friend of his. In the article, Weston noted of Mr Corbyn’s plans: “It is a repugnant idea. I don’t see why it should happen given that the Argentines never had the islands. They have no right to them.


“It could cause civil war again by emboldening the Argentinians. It frightens me enormously because he claims to be such a supporter of democratic freedoms while what he is suggesting throwing the Falkland islanders right to democracy out.


“I don’t ever see him winning an election because his policies and his attitudes just won’t wash with the British public.”

Seymour didn’t quite see it that way. But instead of responding to Mr Weston’s points, he wrote beneath the article: “Seriously, who gives a shit what Simon Weston thinks about anything? If he knew anything he’d still have his face.”

what a vile axse he is,Seymour is a typical muddle headed anarchist,he has form for this sort of crud

http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...seymour_the_guardian_s_most_hateful_columnist