Should Corbyn ignore the smears against him?

[ENG601PM 10]

Oh look, the other Chuckle Brother just came in with his IMAX sized projection.

 

yes you are

 

No I'm not.

 

Look, it is very straightforward. Corbyn's history has been pored over extensively, some fact (many facts, big facts, wonderful facts, the best facts), some conjecture, some half truths, some rumour, some interpretation. It's already out there in all it's unedifying enlightenment and putridness.

 

Corbyn won't sue Bradley because then we can see his history, in the nice concise form of court papers and witness statements. It's a muck rake that even Jezza wouldn't wield on his allotment because he'll end up stinking of the manure just at the time when he's trying to smell of roses. It's not a good smell for a man who they say wants to be PM. Ergo, he wouldn't sue Ben Bradley in a million years IMO.

 

Got it? Capiche? Comprende hombre?

 

-----------

 

Now, moving on, yet again, what do you think about the comments by the former head of MI5 regarding Comrade Jezza's antics with Jan Sarkocy?

[nikki-red 307]

The name calling, bickering and general childishness can end here.

 

If you cant discuss the topic like adults then please dont post.

 

Please bear this warning in mind when posting on other threads too.

 

 

Thank you.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

 

Corbyn won't sue Bradley because then we can see his history, in the nice concise form of court papers and witness statements.

 

I'm not sure you understand how the civil courts work in this country.

 

In a defamation case, Bradley will simply be asked by the court to prove to its satisfaction, that his claims about Corbyn are true. Any attempt to widen this to other unrelated matters will be given very short shrift by the judge. Also if Bradley was relying on information from the security services, he will be waiting a long time. Such information is rarely made public and usually in such a redacted form as to be worthless.

 

If Corbyn sued, this matter wouldn't even get to court. Any serious legal adviser would urge Bradley to apologise and make a very healthy donation to a charity of Corbyn's choice.

 

Or risk a very expensive day in court. I don't know how wealthy Bradley is but I very much doubt that his party would make the same mistake as the 'kippers and offer to cover his costs and damages.

[max 13]

Plus, if there is any information that the security services are currently withholding which they subsequently reveal in the future, then they would have to explain why they approved JC's admission to the Privy Council.

[I1L2T3 10]

Plus, if there is any information that the security services are currently withholding which they subsequently reveal in the future, then they would have to explain why they approved JC's admission to the Privy Council.

 

Very good point.

[max 13]

The latest on the tweet:

 

Mr Bradley has agreed to tweet an apology that says: “On 19 February 2018 I made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account, ‘Ben Bradley MP (@bbradleymp)’, about Jeremy Corbyn, alleging he sold British secrets to communist spies.

 

“I have since deleted the defamatory tweet. I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.

 

“I fully accept that my statement was wholly untrue and false. I accept that I caused distress and upset to Jeremy Corbyn by my untrue and false allegations, suggesting he had betrayed his country by collaborating with foreign spies.

 

“I am very sorry for publishing this untrue and false statement and I have no hesitation in offering my unreserved and unconditional apology to Jeremy Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”"

[Bob Arctor 11]

The latest on the tweet:

 

Mr Bradley has agreed to tweet an apology that says: “On 19 February 2018 I made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account, ‘Ben Bradley MP (@bbradleymp)’, about Jeremy Corbyn, alleging he sold British secrets to communist spies.

 

“I have since deleted the defamatory tweet. I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.

 

“I fully accept that my statement was wholly untrue and false. I accept that I caused distress and upset to Jeremy Corbyn by my untrue and false allegations, suggesting he had betrayed his country by collaborating with foreign spies.

 

“I am very sorry for publishing this untrue and false statement and I have no hesitation in offering my unreserved and unconditional apology to Jeremy Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”"

 

So, the Tories come out of it worse off than Corbyn. Could they be any more inept?

[banjodeano 31]

Oh look, the other Chuckle Brother just came in with his IMAX sized projection.

 

 

 

No I'm not.

 

Look, it is very straightforward. Corbyn's history has been pored over extensively, some fact (many facts, big facts, wonderful facts, the best facts), some conjecture, some half truths, some rumour, some interpretation. It's already out there in all it's unedifying enlightenment and putridness.

 

Corbyn won't sue Bradley because then we can see his history, in the nice concise form of court papers and witness statements. It's a muck rake that even Jezza wouldn't wield on his allotment because he'll end up stinking of the manure just at the time when he's trying to smell of roses. It's not a good smell for a man who they say wants to be PM. Ergo, he wouldn't sue Ben Bradley in a million years IMO.

 

Got it? Capiche? Comprende hombre?

 

-----------

 

Now, moving on, yet again, what do you think about the comments by the former head of MI5 regarding Comrade Jezza's antics with Jan Sarkocy?

 

Well, Mr Bradbury would disagree with you, thats why he has made a grovelling apology admitting there wasnt a shred of truth in the allegations...

They have nothing on Corbyn, and they know it, otherwise it would be out in the open ....

Got it? Capiche? Comprende hombre? :hihi:

[Top Cats Hat 10]

“I have since deleted the defamatory tweet. I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.

 

Oh Dear! ?

[chalga 10]

Oh Dear! ?

 

Can they bankrupt the Cons as well?

[melthebell 862]

Can they bankrupt the Cons as well?

no doubt a certain persons devising a thread as we speak

[Mister M 1,609]

Can they bankrupt the Cons as well?

 

The Cons are already morally bankrupt.

 

As well as being forced to make another grovelling apology, the MP has been forced to make a donation to a food bank in his Mansfield constituency. Perhaps Corbyn's nod to the fact that Bradley made nasty comments about the unemployed.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Mister M