Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Should Corbyn ignore the smears against him?

Recommended Posts

Anyone who believes Corbyn was a spy, traitor, an agent or an asset of a foreign intelligence service should simply hand their evidence to the CPS. These are all crimes.

 

I doubt Corbyn would be anything but inundated with offers of top-class pro bono representation if the CPS actually thought there was a case to answer.

 

And then he could answer it.

 

Until such a time, why should he answer these allegations when the witnesses against him are not under oath, and the evidence against him is non-existent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who believes Corbyn was a spy, traitor, an agent or an asset of a foreign intelligence service should simply hand their evidence to the CPS. These are all crimes.

 

I doubt Corbyn would be anything but inundated with offers of top-class pro bono representation if the CPS actually thought there was a case to answer.

 

And then he could answer it.

 

Until such a time, why should he answer these allegations when the witnesses against him are not under oath, and the evidence against him is non-existent?

 

Finally, some clear thinking, and I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy smoke , the posters explained himself more than once . Have you got a personal connection to Jeremy ?

 

Unfortunately it hasn’t explained anything.

 

Aparrently there’s some ‘stuff’ about Corbyn that is guaranteed to come out in court. Ben Bradley will apparently be able to get MI5 to testify on his side in a libel case :hihi:

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2018 at 08:29 ----------

 

Dear god, no, keep up, listen. I haven't said that. I think Corbyn will win if he sues Bradley but Corbyn won't because then we can see his history, in the nice concise form of court papers and witness statements.

 

It's really simple. The same words. Again.

 

Let's try to help you out. Do you think it would be good for Corbyn's chsnces of election success to have his MI5 files in court? Or witnesses for the defence looking to prove Corbyn was some kind of cold war spy, stooge, sap, or similar? Etc. It would crucify his political options.

 

Who are the witnesses and what will be in the court papers? Who is going to draw up the court papers? The head of MI5?

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2018 at 08:31 ----------

 

The sort of diversionary gobbledygook that ENG specialises in.

 

Any files that MI5 have on Corbyn aren’t going to see the light of day in any libel court case. If they had proof that he was a spy, he would already have been through the courts. It is a nothing story dreamed up by Brexiteers to deflect from the clusterflip that they are visiting on us all.

 

The thing is that some people consider his ideas dangerous. Sadly, they are going to have to get used to those ideas. Corbynism is gradually becoming mainstream. Theresa May is slowly becoming Corbyn-lite. The Tories are shifting to the left. The poor old Mail is going to explode soon.

 

The diversionary tactics arent working on me.

 

I want more information on this. And the more the poster insists it exists the more I will ask what the information is.

Edited by I1L2T3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sort of diversionary gobbledygook that ENG specialises in.

 

Any files that MI5 have on Corbyn aren’t going to see the light of day in any libel court case. If they had proof that he was a spy, he would already have been through the courts. It is a nothing story dreamed up by Brexiteers to deflect from the clusterflip that they are visiting on us all.

 

The thing is that some people consider his ideas dangerous. Sadly, they are going to have to get used to those ideas. Corbynism is gradually becoming mainstream. Theresa May is slowly becoming Corbyn-lite. The Tories are shifting to the left. The poor old Mail is going to explode soon.

Well they had proof that members of the Royal family as well as Dukes and Duchesses of the realm were hob nobin it with Hitler and the Nazi party at one time ,can't remember any of them ending up in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately it hasn’t explained anything.

 

Aparrently there’s some ‘stuff’ about Corbyn that is guaranteed to come out in court. Ben Bradley will apparently be able to get MI5 to testify on his side in a libel case :hihi:

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2018 at 08:29 ----------

 

 

Who are the witnesses and what will be in the court papers? Who is going to draw up the court papers? The head of MI5?

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2018 at 08:31 ----------

 

 

The diversionary tactics arent working on me.

 

I want more information on this. And the more the poster insists it exists the more I will ask what the information is.

 

You really are struggling with this. You've driven yourself down a cul de sac and now you need my permission to reverse, or you can sit there all day for all I care.

 

You are asking for something that I neither believe nor contend so no matter how much you carry on with your pound shop Andrew Neil routine, you can't go anywhere because there is nowhere to go.

 

It's Saturday, go give your imagination a rinse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he should sue them

 

The Duke of Wellington used to favour a duel to settle such matters, how about man hole covers at 10 paces?

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really are struggling with this. You've driven yourself down a cul de sac and now you need my permission to reverse, or you can sit there all day for all I care.

 

You are asking for something that I neither believe nor contend so no matter how much you carry on with your pound shop Andrew Neil routine, you can't go anywhere because there is nowhere to go.

 

It's Saturday, go give your imagination a rinse.

 

Great so you don’t have the info. You don’t believe or contend that there is anything in Corbyn’s history that implicates him.

 

But you still think he won’t sue Bradley because of his history?

 

You’re not making any sense at all.

 

Just slinging mud for the hell of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great so you don’t have the info. You don’t believe or contend that there is anything in Corbyn’s history that implicates him.

 

But you still think he won’t sue Bradley because of his history?

 

You’re not making any sense at all.

 

Just slinging mud for the hell of it.

 

nope, unfortunately he cant put any meat on the bones...

just ramblings i am afraid, no evidence will be forthcoming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you still think he won’t sue Bradley because of his history?

Bingo, you got it at last. :)

 

You’re not making any sense at all.

Ah, but you still can't work it out. :(

 

Rinse rinse, scrub, scrub

Pop your brain in the tub

When it's done hang it dry

And get fresh ideas from passers by

 

Not too bad for 0945 on a Saturday although the rhythm falls apart a bit towards the end. The kids will like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bingo, you got it at last. :)

 

 

Ah, but you still can't work it out. :(

 

Rinse rinse, scrub, scrub

Pop your brain in the tub

When it's done hang it dry

And get fresh ideas from passers by

 

Not too bad for 0945 on a Saturday although the rhythm falls apart a bit towards the end. The kids will like it.

 

You are still not making sense.

 

You are basically saying you don’t believe there is anything in Corbyn’s history but he won’t sue because of his history.

 

The first bit is to cover yourself while you fling the mud in the second bit.

 

In the real world that could land you with a legal case on your back.

 

You are making vague unsubstantuated claims in an attempt at character destruction, but trying to abdicate any responsibility for that.

 

Have a think....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are basically saying you don’t believe there is anything in Corbyn’s history but he won’t sue because of his history.

No I am not saying that.

 

You're finding this difficult because you keep imagining what you think I said. I don't even have to check because I don't think it and therefore I haven't written it. Go back and read what I have ACTUALLY written and think about it.

 

Meantime, if you have a sensible on topic question or point to make instead of some half assed imaginary accusation please post it.

 

I'll give you some meat to chew on from today's Huffington Post.

 

Jeremy Corbyn has “questions to answer” over his Cold War links, a former spy chief has said.

 

Sir Richard Dearlove said the Labour leader should have “taken care to avoid” meeting a Czechoslovakian agent and cannot just “laugh off” the claims, The Press Association reports.

 

The ex-MI6 boss said holding only a couple of meetings with Jan Sarkocy would amount to “stupidity” but if the spy’s claims that many more took place were true then “this affair takes on a completely different aspect”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-czech-spy-richard-dearlove_uk_5a9113a5e4b03b55731c65d7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I am not saying that.

 

You're finding this difficult because you keep imagining what you think I said. I don't even have to check because I don't think it and therefore I haven't written it. Go back and read what I have ACTUALLY written and think about it.

 

Meantime, if you have a sensible on topic question or point to make instead of some half assed imaginary accusation please post it.

 

I'll give you some meat to chew on from today's Huffington Post.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-czech-spy-richard-dearlove_uk_5a9113a5e4b03b55731c65d7

yes you are, thats what you are saying, go back and read what you have written, you have rambled on for pages and made no sense at all,

you say..."then we can see his history, in the nice concise form of court papers and witness statements".

then you say....

."I think Corbyn will win if he sues Bradley"

So if you think Corbyn will win, then he has nothing to answer for...

what in the name of god are you Blathering on about??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.