The Labour Party

It wasn't Annie who posted the picture, it was me.
Even better that it wasn't even Corbyn then, I didn't realise it was just someone who looked a bit like him.
Are there any photos of him at IRA funerals? He definitely attended them, didn't he? Or was he always out of camera, or have they been removed from the public domain?

We all know that as a man of peace, he was 'happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland'.

And please apologise for accusing me of repeating blatant lies bmacca, it was the funeral of Bobby Sands and the armed salute from the IRA

where did I say Corbyn was in the photograph? I posted a photograph of the Bobby Sands funeral and the armed IRA members

Good grief, Anniebach, you must surely know it has been verified beyond doubt that the man in the photo is NOT Corbyn. As an (ex) Labour Party member, I am very disappointed that you would repeat such blatant lies about a Labour leader, even though you dislike him

Annie, I think you're making a common mistake. I've made this mistake too. If you look at the photos, you'll see quite clearly that Corbyn is not looking directly at the men in combat gear, pointing rifles and shooting into the air. He's looking ahead.

This means he obviously didn't see them.

When they fired the guns, because he had a bad cold that day that dulled his hearing, he simply assumed that some fireworks were being let off.

We've all made the same mistake, surely.

Very worrying we could have a P.M. Who didn't know men in para military uniform and face masks firing guns over a coffin in N.Ireland were members of the IRA , and didn't know when he led a campaign to have an IRA member in prison for murder classed as a political prisoner he was campaigning for a IRA member

It's not 'Whataboutery' at all GGMk2. I was answering the question you asked me and offering more information if you needed it.
I did not know why the post had been reported and had an email exchange with GN. It was not 'for whatever reason' at all. It was for a specific reason.
It was because I felt a poster had been particularly harsh on another poster and said 'You've acted like a playground bully'. They reported the post and it was removed. I had an email exchange with GN who told me that sentence was the reason my post was removed.

I'm happy to post and follow the same rules as everyone else, or to follow the standards they set themselves. Same as I'm happy for all politicians to be held to the same standard.

There's a section on him GGMk2. And Clive Lewis, Williamson and others. The author has tweeted plenty of specifics that Jeremy could sue for, if it was not true. Articles that he 'liked'. Comments he made under anti-semitic comments. He has said there is no way he did not see anti-semitic content. Which contradicts what Corbyn said.

You seem to hypothesise a situation where Corbyn has done nothing wrong and say that's why he has not acted. 'If there is nothing specifically about him'. Well, there is. And he hasn't.

Happy to talk about the facts, but I don't want to get into a long stream of having to answer every 'But if'.

Good grief, Corbyn attended the funeral of Bobby Sands, he walked past a guard of honour , IRA members with rifles raised in a salute . If he didn't know

www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB703GB703&hl=en-GB&q=jeremy+corbyn+bobby+sands+funeral&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi51LGxv-HZAhUnCsAKHeraBSwQ1QIoAHoECAkQAQ&biw=1024&bih=748#imgdii=OPeMoLg8lkibIM:&imgrc=bmZ5WcWKEsjBfM:

Perhaps GN will confirm it is against rules to call posters bullies, sorted

I've been told by other posters that it is against the rules of GN
Then I suggest you check with GN if it is specifically against the rules then you would know wouldn't you. Easily done and I am sure they would be happy to clarify.

As their rules are few I imagine that it was what was actually happening - not your version - was that some general behaviour might not have gone down too well. If someone reported a post and it was deleted - presumably the only way you would know it had been reported - it was against the rules wasn't it, for whatever reason.

As you directed that at me I answered it but I am not going to answer any more of your Whataboutery.

I have not seen any threats of legal action over anything said about him in the anti-semitism report.

What part of the report would you expect Corbyn, specifically to take legal action over. If there is nothing specifically about him then he wouldn't, would he.

Corbyn seems pretty quick off the mark to threaten legal action against people when they get things wrong. I know he won't take on a paper, as they have resources, I mean individuals. I have not seen any threats of legal action over anything said about him in the anti-semitism report.
So, based on his recent actions, everything is true. Otherwise, there would be threats from his lawyer. That's how he operates, as we've all seen and commented on.

A simple 'I didn't see it', 'I didn't realise' 'I didn't know' means nothing.

GGMk2 Regarding your question about bullying, I've been told by other posters that it is against the rules of GN and one reported a post of mine where I suggested someone was bullying. Would you like to hear that story? Always happy to answer your questions.

I can't think what would be the worst thing I could say about you Annie but let's have a go. Let's imagine that I said that you had been seen frequently in the company of Devil Worshipers. Let's also imagine that this was a fact, you had been seen with people who, it later turned out, were devil worshipers. Let's then imagine that I then wrote a piece which extrapolated that you were, therefore, a supporter of devil worship, and possibly a devil worshiper yourself. Would you having been in the company of these people mean that you knew them, knew that this was their belief and way of life? If it wasn't true, wouldn't you deny it just as Corbyn has done.

Lemongrove, I think I may owe you an apology as I am beginning to realise that English may not be your first language. I know how much I struggle with the written word but if it isn't then that would really explain why you punish it so much and I am sorry you have these difficulties.

Let me help you, as others have done in the past for me, pointing out my errors, etc. Firstly the 'logic' I referred to was Day6's. I found it very odd so I am hardly likely to apply it to my own thinking. I can see how you muddled that up but although Day6 might apply it, I would not.

Secondly, let's look at the "not afraid of revolutionary Marxists in government at a future date". I admit that the words my leave my head and not reach the page in the way they started quite frequently. I do work on it, I do use software occasionally (but it thinks I'm speaking American and can give very amusing results) and I do check and check again - but still the pesky mistakes get past me.

I did, when picked up on this, explain, however. Let's make it easy this time. I am not "afraid" of a giant treading on my house either, and for the same reason. I don't believe in the giant. In the same way - and I think we were talking about a revolutionary communist government in actual fact, but I could have misremembered that - I don't believe a revolutionary government will take over this country. I don't think there will be a coup, a putsch or any such thing; so I don't worry about it.

You, on the other hand may believe it will happen (you may believe a giant will tread on you house too) so you are perfectly at liberty to worry about either or both. The thing is - and this may come as surprise to you I know - we don't have to think or believe the same thing.

Like he didn't know anyone in the IRA, yet shared a platform with IRA members . and attended memorials services with IRA members

He has been denying all sorts of things ever since he became LP Leader,

Like being Czech spy, lemon?

Perhaps he's been denying things because they aren't true?

Using that logic GGM2 what does it say about your own leanings?You have already stated on a couple of threads that you are not afraid of revolutionary Marxists in government at a future date ( even MaizieD was a bit surprised I thought by that one!)
Plenty of people here, and in RL may have voted Labour on many occasions in the past, even always voted Labour (until Corbyn became leader )which now makes it untenable for them.
I should worry about your own blood pressure if I were you.

Says the man who is not a member of the Labour Party but is definitely providing rear-guard action for left wingers at every turn.

I do worry about your blood pressure Day6. It is perfectly allowable for people to know a lot about any party and to find what a party is doing interesting without being a member. It is hardly a hanging offence. I am not a member of any party and I think you will find there are quite a few who are interested, have some knowledge and like to discuss politics who are also not members of a party.

Do we take it that your leanings to the right (quite a long way to the right on occasions) in discussions mean you are a member of the Conservative Party. With your logic that must be the case.

Interesting ...

Primrose, like many others, finds the Labour Party's involvement in anti-semetic groups abhorrent.

Making things up to suit your own point of view again Day6? Even the gutter press is not accusing the Labour Party of being involved in anti-Semitic groups - they wouldn't dare as they is a good chance they would be sued for deformation and slander. There is absolutely no proof of "Labour Party" involvement in any such thing and, as people are beginning to feel the force of the law (slowly admittedly) for what they put on the internet you really should be careful about your accusations.

It is the failing attempt to make such a connection that is becoming more and more laughable. The latest is to try and connect Corbyn to a group on Facebook whose members may or may not also be members of the Labour Party. These groups can be set up and joined by anyone. Indeed one of them could be someone like you. It could be someone who is desperate enough to want to add to the MSM smears. It could even be a journalist. Some are certainly members of the LP. If they do turn out to be members, what we do know is that the LP deals with them promptly and in a proper way when they have done a thorough investigation.

You are all obviously struggling very hard to paint Labour in the worst light possible. I wonder what you are afraid of?

it's actually against GN rules to call someone a bully

Where does it say th at, Primrose?

Grandad - "I think forum members would have far more respect for you if you dealt with the questions you have already been asked, rather than moving on to yet another side issue?"

Says the man who is not a member of the Labour Party but is definitely providing rear-guard action for left wingers at every turn. You have so many 'facts' at your fingertips, Grandad, and have tried diversionary tactics on this thread - just what you accuse Primrose of doing.

Interesting.

labourlist.org/2018/03/council-by-elections-labour-make-gains-and-tories-lose-safe-seats/

Excellent results for Labour in the by-elections.

GG - "I understand where the smear campaign is coming from and how biased it's source. You can blow this up and make it as out of proportion as you like Primrose but what does that achieve?"

Primrose, like many others, finds the Labour Party's involvement in anti-semetic groups abhorrent. The Guardian, that mouthpiece for the left, also questions Labour's association with hate groups. It's not a smear campaign, it's a fact. Trying to deflect this problem isn't the answer. Not one of us is without some sort of sin I'd imagine, but for the political party in opposition anti-semitism is a huge and nasty problem and a stain on all it stands for.

Maryeliza54 - "I think there’s only Caroline Flint who has dared speak out - what are the other women Labour MPs ( you know the ones with vaginas) doing?"

I have asked the same question myself Maryeliza. I find it troubling that women Labour MPs are not forcing the trans debate and the issue of men self-identifying and impinging on women's spaces, roles and rights. It's a slap in the face for women everywhere who care about the rights and respect we have had to fight for over centuries. Along with the Bergdorf fiasco there seems to be madness within if Labour cannot see how they are alienating women everywhere in kow-towing to a tiny minority of men - with penises and male hormones - who like to think they are women.