Weston Super Saint

More than the claim that Corbyn is being 'persecuted'... The Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Jews were persecuted by the Nazis. Corbyn is being punished for being a cock. Starmer is making an example of him for sure, but that's not persecution!

His 'behaviour' and his inability to control the party have only come to light since he was replaced as the leader. I argue he was suspended - and subsequently not handed back the 'whip' on this basis. That does not constitute 'persecution' (even though politics are in play), but it's more akin to the punishment a traditional employee would receive in an equivalent position - basically being sacked...

No. I'm claiming he's being excluded from the Labour party for being anti Semitic. He's not being 'persecuted' as his supporters claim and is suffering the same way that every other employee would suffer if they held the same abhorrent views. To claim he is being 'persecuted' and liken what he is rightly going through is another abhorrent statement from his supporters and belittles the actual 'persuction' that the Jews suffered. I'm sure as an ardent supporter of the vile creature, that has passed you by though.

Err, I've suggested the 'words' don't work from the beginning. Note the 's' on the end of word... It was FTF that claimed a different 'word' should be used so go argue your semantics with him.. I then gave alternatives when you asked for them. All of those alternatives would work if you changed the 'strange choice of words' as I previously pointed out...

Which is why my original post stated : "strange choice of words"

Integrity?

Leadership?

Justice?

What word did you use when Oliver Letwin, Ken Clarke et al had their whips removed? I don't recall any cries of 'persecution'...

Strange choice of words given the reason he was suspended! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54990506

Good lad! Just goes to show, you can't keep a good man down! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54975932

Good lad! Just goes to show, you can't keep a good man down! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54976558

Shows how easy it can be to negotiate when sensible people are involved doesn't it?

Is the answer 'blowjob'?

The roses aren't smelling so great across the water in EU land : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54964858

George Orwell would be so proud!! Luckily the thickies have got you to do their thinking for them!!

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that people are influenced by social media, exactly the same as people have always been influenced by some type of media - specifically tobacco advertising in the 60s and 70s. Being gullible is still not the same as being forced.

Jesus wept. For someone who's supposed to be quite bright, you can be very dim sometimes. Again, and for the last time, social media is a choice. No one is FORCED to look at social media, ergo no one is FORCED to read unsolicited views and opinions. It's a very simple concept and to argue that people are forced to read something is plainly wrong.

Nobody is 'forced' to believe what religious leaders / influencers say. Choosing to accept is not the same as being 'forced'. Your point about Trump is also moot as within minutes of him 'claiming that bleach was a cure', what was clearly a ridiculous statement was debunked in pretty much every media and social media outlet - not to mention the fact that he didn't actually say that bleach was a cure, merely that 'they' could do something with bleach as it was known to kill the virus! Even so, not one person was 'forced' to believe what he said....

Absolute pony once again! At no point have I ever said that I "do not accept that people post their opinions on social media because they want other people to read (and probably agree with) their opinion". That's the entire point of social media! I've disagreed with you that people's views are FORCED on anyone else on social media! You seem to have changed your mind on that now as you state "people without a brain can read and believe nonsense", which is very different from your previous post which stated "don't be forcing your views on others and relying on false beliefs in support" which is what I disagreed with. Just because people 'can' read the nonsense that other people write, doesn't mean the Government should introduce a law to control what is written (and subsequently read). Why should it be the job of the Government to pass laws about what is and isn't allowed to be written about the vaccine just because there are stupid people in the country? Darwin nailed it many moons ago

Behave. It's not being 'forced' on anyone is it? It's social media, if you don't like what is being said, turn it off or block the poster. I think it may be you who is confused by the concept of social media if you think it is 'forced' on people!

Absolute pony! Nobody is having views 'forced upon them' on Social Media!

Playing devil's advocate, if someone posts that prayer and belief in God will cure a sick child with absolutely no evidence, should that also be deleted under the new law that is being requested by Labour? Where do you draw the line and who gets to decide what should be kept and what shouldn't?

Is this a step too far? Should the Government be deciding what people should and shouldn't believe? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54947661

Those are the Norwegian option