Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Bielzibubz]

I'll ask again seeing as no one replied. Did JC actually say this in the House of Commons? If he did would someone on the left on here like to clarify what they think he meant or is it as I read it, he didn't actually believe it was a poisoning.

I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement on this deeply alarming attack, which raises very serious questions. The whole House condemns the suspected poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury and, of course, we wish them a return to good health. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey a speedy recovery as well. No member of our police force and nobody on the streets of Britain should ever face such an attack—let alone one with chemical weapons.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I find that statement a little worrying Barna. Do you mean that the PLP is in the process of changing from being a broad church to being a sect?

In the meantime it's good to see our allies have supported us, even if the leader of the opposition can't.

If by "support" you mean fine words that ¡s all we're going to get from the USA,France,Germany or anyone else.Jeremy Corbyn has condemmed the attack in forthright terms,calling it "appalling".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

In the meantime it's good to see our allies have supported us, even if the leader of the opposition can't.

None of them have said it was Russia though - the statement says its 'the only plausible explanation' and Trump when asked said 'it looks like it'. No one has actually stated it was Russia.

May, Corbyn, Germany, USA - all using very similar language by condemning what happened and saying the blame is very likely with the Russians. No statements issued that declare certainty that I'm aware of.

 

[rigsby]

A couple of questions for Londonblue....Do you agree with the greater Israel project ( the expansion beyond its current borders)

What about the many Jews who don't support the occupation of Gaza and the West bank or the treatment of Palestinians...Can they be classed as anti Semites?

 

[Bielzibubz]

Downing Street release photo of the first of the 23 expelled undercover Russian spies leaving the UK

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

Downing Street release photo of the first of the 23 expelled undercover Russian spies leaving the UK

View attachment 5196

FAKE NEWS and not worthy of a response. Is that all you've got Bielzibubz?

 

[Benfleet A1]

You haven't answered the question as usual. What is it that you want from all this? Even if Putin puts his hands up and accepts liability then what? Which, of course he won't.

And I very much doubt that the current Labour party would be given support from those billionaires living here in the UK. New Labour, very definitely, but there was only a very thin almost non-existant line between Blair/Brown & the Tories.

Oh, I'm sorry, you were addressing me were you? Well firstly I want to see some leadership and I think May is finally showing some. Everything points to state sponsered murder or in this case attempted murder and she has acted with some balls. Corbyn has not.

Secondly, you spluttering out gibberish about nuclear amagedden and the end of the world everytime someone raises their voice is both scaremongering and frankly bloody childish. Russia and Putin are more likely to take notice of a show of a bit of guts rather than someone who ***** themselves everytime he trys to flex his muscles.

And thirdly, the Labour Party were going long before Blair came along. Read a bit of history and you might just realise how far up the USSR's arse some of their shining lights really were. Plenty of roubles were handed over back in the day regardless of what you think.

 

[GBJ]

I believe that they believe that it was on Putin's instructions.

Lol ok, so I'll ask you again, do YOU trust what these experts have said? It's a fairly simple question, that really only needs a yes or no answer :thumbsup:

So Blair couldn't be trusted because he went along with the security assessment and Corbyn can't be trusted because he is more cautious about the security assessments - got you.

No, Blair couldn't be trusted because he had already agreed to back Bush to the fullest extent, regardless of the security assessment, (which was confirmed in the declassified memo from Colin Powell) in other words, Blair was going to war and not much would stop that. The Chilcot Enquiry pretty much backs that theory, by implying that the so-called threat of WMD's were fabrication. So if anything, You could alledge that Blair ignored the security assessment, in order to pursue his own personal interests.

And now, Corbyn has refused to acknowledge the security assessment, and instead has indirectly undermined their expertise & reputation

Look, Nobody's suggestion Corbyn should mount a tank, smear paint across his cheeks & ride for Moscow. But his stance has made him look clueless, unprepared & weak. Not the qualities you want in a potential leader. ****, even his own back benchers have condemned his spineless actions.

 

[GBJ]

None of them have said it was Russia though - the statement says its 'the only plausible explanation' and Trump when asked said 'it looks like it'. No one has actually stated it was Russia.

May, Corbyn, Germany, USA - all using very similar language by condemning what happened and saying the blame is very likely with the Russians. No statements issued that declare certainty that I'm aware of.

Question: If in a few days, it is irrefutably confirmed that Russia are responsible, and the order has come from the top, do you think Corbyn's public reputation (which admittedly has grown recently) would be badly damaged, due to this saga?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Lol ok, so I'll ask you again, do YOU trust what these experts have said? It's a fairly simple question, that really only needs a yes or no answer :thumbsup:



No, Blair couldn't be trusted because he had already agreed to back Bush to the fullest extent, regardless of the security assessment, (which was confirmed in the declassified memo from Colin Powell) in other words, Blair was going to war and not much would stop that. The Chilcot Enquiry pretty much backs that theory, by implying that the so-called threat of WMD's were fabrication. So if anything, You could alledge that Blair ignored the security assessment, in order to pursue his own personal interests.

And now, Corbyn has refused to acknowledge the security assessment, and instead has indirectly undermined their expertise & reputation

Look, Nobody's suggestion Corbyn should mount a tank, smear paint across his cheeks & ride for Moscow. But his stance has made him look clueless, unprepared & weak. Not the qualities you want in a potential leader. ****, even his own back benchers have condemned his spineless actions.

this is the thing - you want a yes or no answer and no one is willing to give one. The politicians say the 'believe' or 'it looks like' but no one is willing to say 'it was the Russians' - yet they are willing to put actions in place as if they knew it was the Russians when in fact it only 'looks like' it was the Russians.

You say Corbyn is being spineless but in fact it is the opposite of that. It would be so much easier for him to just join the crowd and take the opinion that you should take quick action based on what it 'looks like' has happened. It takes a lot more guts to stand up and say you need to calm down, investigate thoroughly and then act. May won't say it was the Russians - if she would then instant reaction would make more sense. Everyone knows war and aggression wins votes. To sign up to that policy when you feel that is not the right thing to do - that would be spineless.

Disagree with Corbyn - absolutely, fill your boots. But say he is weak to not go with the crowd is crazy IMO - he knows he will get slaughtered in the press for this, he knows a lot of his own party will use it against him - but he is standing up for what he believes.

I voted for him twice in the leadership elections, but I felt he should stand down at one point because Labour were consistently 20% behind in the polls and the press were finding new ways to take him apart every day. And he shrugged it off and stuck with what he believes and carried on telling others what he believes and went on to get 40% of the vote in the general election.

You can take him to task for a lot of things - David Cameron tried to do so many times but when the going got tough Cameron ****ed off and Corbyn carried on.

More information will come to light on the poisoning and more will emerge from how our relationship with Russia pans out. Interesting times.

 

[Bielzibubz]

FAKE NEWS and not worthy of a response. Is that all you've got Bielzibubz?

Oh dear Lord! It's not news at all, fake or otherwise. I made it up. It was a lighthearted joke. :hilarious:

Seriously, you thought I thought it real? :nope:

 

[Lord Football]

So, to clarify, do you doubt what these experts have claimed? I mean, it's either the case that they're right or they're wrong, and/or they can be trusted or they can't be trusted. I don't see any possible grey area here.

I thought we'd all had enough of experts and weren't supposed to listen to them anymore.......

 

[Benfleet A1]

I thought we'd all had enough of experts and weren't supposed to listen to them anymore.......

Only if your last name is Gove.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43440992

Was amused to see the British Council in Moscow will be closed as part of Russia's "retaliation." (Used to know a bloke who'd worked there and I was examining the Cambridge Speaking exams at the British Council here in Barcelona yesterday. It's hardly a hotbed of spies or even diplomats.I rather imagine the British Council in Moscow is similar.).:winking:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43440992

Was amused to see the British Council in Moscow will be closed as part of Russia's "retaliation." (Used to know a bloke who'd worked there and I was examining the Cambridge Speaking exams at the British Council here in Barcelona yesterday. It's hardly a hotbed of spies or even diplomats.I rather imagine the British Council in Moscow is similar.).:winking:

Although May's ratings have apparently gone up for her tough stance what has she actually done? I don't see expelling some diplomats as being a big deal to Russia. Cracking down on the money laundering - something May has resisted would be more effective.

She was asked in Parliament if its true that Russia is the UK's biggest weapons grade nuclear substances export market and if sanctions will be imposed on these sales - and she totally ignored the question.

The promise from Gavin 'Russia should shut up' Williamson of a £48m new chemical weapons defence centre in reaction to Salisbury should be judged with the fact that 6 years ago £129m was slashed from the MOD unit that have responsibility for chemical weapons defence.

 

[GBJ]

this is the thing - you want a yes or no answer and no one is willing to give one

You've once again completely avoided my question. Look, it's pretty simple. The professionals will all be privy to information, experience & knowledge, that we would never begin to know about, or understand. Our scientists have done their tests & studies, and concluded that the nerve agent is Russian made. Our security experts have examined the evidence and concluded that it was an ordered hit from the Russian State. To us mere mortals, those conclusions may or may not be accurate, we simply don't know. But we put our faith and trust in them, because that's what they do.

Something I am struggling to understand, is how we've discussed court cases & trials in the past, and you have always claimed that as the jurors get the in-depth-detail of a case, their opinion is worth more than ours, as we simply don't know enough to make a properly informed decision. Yet contrarily, in this scenario, the experts & professionals' summary doesn't seem to be be good enough for you?

So, for the third and final time of asking, do you trust these experts & specialists to come to correct, factual conclusions, or do you not?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You've once again completely avoided my question. Look, it's pretty simple. The professionals will all be privy to information, experience & knowledge, that we would never begin to know about, or understand. Our scientists have done their tests & studies, and concluded that the nerve agent is Russian made. Our security experts have examined the evidence and concluded that it was an ordered hit from the Russian State. To us mere mortals, those conclusions may or may not be accurate, we simply don't know. But we put our faith and trust in them, because that's what they do.

Something I am struggling to understand, is how we've discussed court cases & trials in the past, and you have always claimed that as the jurors get the in-depth-detail of a case, their opinion is worth more than ours, as we simply don't know enough to make a properly informed decision. Yet contrarily, in this scenario, the experts & professionals' summary doesn't seem to be be good enough for you?

So, for the third and final time of asking, do you trust these experts & specialists to come to correct, factual conclusions, or do you not?

i answered your question clearly and in the terms the experts have used so we are all on the same page - yes I believe that they believe the chemicals came from Russia. What they haven't confirmed is that it was Russia that used them. When they can confirm that then its good enough for me. As you say in a court case the jury are presented with all of the evidence - but you don't have a court case a few days after the incident - so they won't have all data yet that will become available.

 

[blues exile]

You've once again completely avoided my question. Look, it's pretty simple. The professionals will all be privy to information, experience & knowledge, that we would never begin to know about, or understand. Our scientists have done their tests & studies, and concluded that the nerve agent is Russian made. Our security experts have examined the evidence and concluded that it was an ordered hit from the Russian State. To us mere mortals, those conclusions may or may not be accurate, we simply don't know. But we put our faith and trust in them, because that's what they do.

Something I am struggling to understand, is how we've discussed court cases & trials in the past, and you have always claimed that as the jurors get the in-depth-detail of a case, their opinion is worth more than ours, as we simply don't know enough to make a properly informed decision. Yet contrarily, in this scenario, the experts & professionals' summary doesn't seem to be be good enough for you?

So, for the third and final time of asking, do you trust these experts & specialists to come to correct, factual conclusions, or do you not?

The actual wording from scientists at Porton Down, who apparently have been under great presure from the government, is 'developed in Russia'. That is a huge difference from 'made in Russia'.

 

[Bielzibubz]

The actual wording from scientists at Porton Down, who apparently have been under great presure from the government, is 'developed in Russia'. That is a huge difference from 'made in Russia'.

And you know this how? Any hard evidence or is it anecdotal or from The Guardian?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

James O'Brien of LBC:


'If, as seems likely, May shared more intelligence with Merkel, Macron & Trump than she did with Corbyn then *everything* makes sense & the Labour leader’s been made to look a stooge'.




As Leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council he's supposed to be kept as fully briefed on important security matters as the Prime Minister is. This looks very dodgy from the government circumventing democracy.