Sheaf Saint

In fairness, if you read some of the comments on Twitter and Facebook, you'll see there is a lot of genuine hatred towards JC from large sections of a certain demographic. Of course, it's wrong to tar them all with the same brush, but it must be acknowledged that that hatred exists.

The investigation by the Institute for Jewish Policy last September concluded that instances of "jew hating" are more prevalent in right wing parties than in the Labour Party. So why is it perfectly OK for the entire country to be discussing antisemitism in Labour, but when someone quite rightly points out that it is just as rife, if not more so, in other parties it can be just dismissed as whataboutery?

I agree with this too Shurlock. Clearly there are elements on the left that have a problem with antisemitism and I don't see anybody claiming that such a problem does not exist. But there is simply no real evidence that it is any more prevalent in the Labour party than in any other party currently... Last autumn, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research carried out a comprehensive study which concluded that the level of antisemitism on the political left is consistent with the general population. In 2015, a home affairs committee consisting of predominantly Tory MPs investigated allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party and concluded that "Despite significant press & public attention on the Labour party and a number of revelations regarding inappropriate social media content, there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the party than any other party". With regards to the mural which has apparently sparked this latest 'outrage', even the Jewish Chronicle weren't convinced that it was even antisemitic when Corbyn's support for it was reported in 2015, describing it as simply depicting “a group of businessmen and bankers sitting around a Monopoly-style board and counting money” - no mention of any of them being Jewish at all. Both the Jewish Voice for Labour and the Jewish Socialists have come out in support of Corbyn over the last 24 hours, which they undoubtedly would not do if the claim that antisemitism is rife and allowed to propagate in the party was true. Even the picture of the demonstrators outside parliament shows many of them actually supporting Corbyn rather than criticising him. It's so obvious to anybody without blue tinted blinkers that this latest round of outrage is just another orchestrated attempt to smear and discredit Corbyn ahead of the upcoming local elections. One Tory activist was crowing on Twitter this morning (before strangely deleting his account) that it was a stroke of genius that they have been able to pull this off in the run up to the elections... So, while I acknowledge that antisemitism is a problem throughout society, and I believe it needs to be tackled alongside all other kinds of racism/discrimination in all corners of society, forgive me if I'm not going to allow myself to be swept up in the current whirlwind of anti-Corbyn propaganda.

The Porton Down analyst swore evidence to the court that the nerve agent used was a "novichok class or a closely related agent". So, possibly not actually a novichok then. Johnson claims that they told him they had no doubt it was definitely a Russian Novichok. One of these statements is not true, as they can't both be. Which one do you think it is?

I assume you are referring to Jess Phillips. Well then I'm sold - it's not as if she's a disgruntled Blairite with an axe to grind against Corbyn is it. Oh, hang on..... FFS this flaming of Corbyn over whatever they choose to smear him with this week is just getting so tired and predictable now, really it is. Three weeks ago he was a Czech spy, but they couldn't make that accusation stick because the 'source' was a deluded fantasist who claimed that Corbyn told him what Maggie Thatcher ate for breakfast each day and that he was also responsible for organising Live Aid. Then, paradoxically, he was a communist who was also a sympathiser for the authoritarian dictator of a corporate oligarchy. But, again, couldn't get that mud to stick because it's clearly a load of contradictory bullsh*t and it turns out he was actually just doing his job as leader of the opposition byt holding the govt to account. Oh he's an anti-semite again this week is he? Funny that Jewish Voice for Labour doesn't think so isn't it, hmmm? I wonder what scandal the government are trying to distract us from this time? Could it possibly be the revelations of their ties to Cambridge Analytica, and the fact that they were given pre-warning of a warrant being granted so they could destroy all the evidence first?

Actually, yes it is. Despite what Verbal claims about the background of this guy - I had no idea who he was until last week so I can't comment on his history - the evidence he presents here is concrete. If you follow the link to the report of the Royal Courts of Justice ruling here (page 10), you'll see it in black and white. What Boris Johnson has been claiming about the certainty of the evidence that it is a novichok of Russian origin is completely at odds with the testimony of the Porton Down analyst to the RCJ... "Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent. " Johnson's interview yesterday... "You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it? Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory … So they have the samples … They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt." Somebody here isn't telling the truth. And I know who my money is on.

I can't take credit for this, it's from a satirical page on Facebook, but it's a really good read... I see you, Gavin Williamson. I see you puffing out your chest, concentrating super hard on squinting out your meanest possible stare, clenching your fists and tightening your bumhole right up in an attempt to make your face turn red. You’re absolutely bloody livid, aren’t you, Gavin Williamson? Those horrible Russians have come over here and taken your lunch money and your dad’s definitely harder than their dad so they’re going to be super bloody sorry. This could be your Darkest Hour moment, couldn’t it? An indignant shaking of the fist to bloody the nose of the evil interloper, a rattling of sabres for the ages. It’s your big chance to intimidate and impress, to silence the naysayers who think you’re too politically immature for your new position. You’ll show them, won’t you, Gavin Williamson? You’re a big boy and you’ve got your big boy pants on and it’s time to kick some olig-arse. What a ****ing embarrassment you are. I mean, seriously, who can’t even get “shut up and go away” in the right order? You looked like a schoolboy panicking after he accidentally called the teacher ‘mum.’ You’re supposed to be the hard man, the steely-eyed maverick who once kept a tarantula in his office just to intimidate his enemies. Instead you’ve come across like a bumbling dork on the verge of wetting his pants. At least Michael Fallon would’ve given Russia a verbal spanking on a par with the literal ones he gave his creeped-out interns. After another week of Spygate 2: The Re-Murdering, just about every player in the game has been trying to work it to their advantage. Theresa May’s doing her damnedest to turn it into her Falklands moment, even though she’s less Iron Lady and more a bundle of off-brand Twiglets crumpled into a scarecrow. After weeks of the catastrophic ****storm of Brexit she finally gets to impersonate a leader, hammering Corbyn on his perceived weakness. In a national security crisis JC’s softly-softly approach is never going to play well with a huge chunk of the electorate, even if caution in a ****-storm is a far more prudent approach than opening your mouth above the parapet. If it turns out to be true that the Tories deliberately shut him out of the highest level of intelligence briefing regarding the attack, he’s walked straight into their trap. If there’s evidence he wasn’t privy to that indicates Russian state involvement more clearly, then it’s one of the most nauseatingly Machiavellian plays we’ve seen from May and her clutch of ******s; to use his own integrity against him, knowing full well that he wouldn’t blindly support condemnation of Russia without seeing enough evidence. So now we’re back to Corbyn being a communist and a stooge for a foreign power, even though his politics have about as much in common with Russia’s post-Soviet corporate oligarchy as Kim Kardashian has with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Tories can put red flags in voters’ minds just by suggesting that they’re red in the first place, even though their own party has far more links to suspicious Russian money than Labour. When the wife of a Putin loyalist can pay £160,000 to play tennis with Boris Johnson the only rackets involved aren’t going to be strung with catgut. If it wasn’t about influencing policy and extending Russian influence she could’ve saved the money by staying at home and slapping a few balls into a racist haystack. This can’t be much fun for you, Gavin Williamson. A diplomatic face-off with an emboldened and brazen Russia is about one of the most complicated defence situations I can imagine and you’ve barely been in the post five minutes. Five years ago your official job was to nod your head and carry other people’s notes about, to the point where John Bercow was actively taking the **** out of you for it when you piped up in the Commons. Now you’re representing Britain on the world stage, standing up to threats for all of us, and how on Earth are you supposed to intimidate a man like Putin? If it worked back then it can work again, right? I see you, Gavin Williamson, your hands shaking as you smooth your hair in the mirror and fuss at the knot of your tie. I see you walk around the desk of your office, carefully turning the terrarium to the optimum angle. Now the first thing he sees when he walks in will be Cronus the tarantula and who wouldn’t be scared of that? You’ve got to be dead hard to have a pet spider. You’re Gavin Williamson, dead hard absolute legend, and when the Russian ambassador walks in to your office you’re going to scare the **** out of him and tell him what for. I hear the buzzer sound as an external door opens, Gavin Williamson. I see you rush to your chair, sitting yourself down, swallowing hard and practising your meanest scowl. It’s time for the big show, isn’t it? You and Cronus are fearless and ready for him. I see the wooden doors burst open, Gavin Williamson, and I hear you yelp as the frame splinters, the hinges flying free and clanging against the floor. I see the shadow envelop you as you shrink into your chair, the bare-chested figure looming over you. It’s not the ambassador, is it? I see you cover your face with your arms, wrapping yourself up into a foetal position. I hear the draw of a zipper and the shattering of glass as something huge and meaty is slammed into the terrarium. I see a spurt of spider innards splash across your shrieking body. This is why it’s all happening, Gavin Williamson. This is why it all makes sense. Putin’s reinforced his position by playing the narrative that only he can secure Russia against its enemies. Only he can prevent another collapse like the nineties. Only he has what it takes to represent Russia on the world stage and stand against the mud-raking West, determined as they are to paint his entire country as the villains. This is Salisbury in a nutshell, really. Putin’s slapped his **** down on your desk for no other reason than to prove he can. And your ****y little spider doesn’t frighten him one bit. Just look at his margin, Gavin Williamson. He’s got even more girth than in 2012. I see you, Gavin Williamson. I ****ing see you.

You do realise there's no such thing as genies and it's just a bit of fun, right?

I think that's a very fair assessment, yes.

Taken out of context, yes it seems very crude to be talking about party funding in the aftermath of such circumstances. But when the party funding in question is seemingly coming from the exact same source that the government are pointing the finger of blame at for the atrocity, then yes he was absolutely right to raise it. To try and claim that he shouldn't have because of the timing is reminiscent of how the Republicans in the US like to deflect attention away from their love-in with the NRA by saying "now isn't the time to be debating our gun laws" every time there is a mass school shooting. But if that is all people are concerned about, then why on earth did he find himself the subject of such an orchestrated hatchet job in the media when all the attention should have been on the incident itself and the governments response to it? Do you think it is right that the biggest newspapers in the country, and even the BBC, dedicated so much of their output in the following days to slaughtering the leader of the opposition for some comments that were poorly timed at worst? When the government themselves have been caught with potentially their hands in the pockets of the perpetrators? This is my beef with the whole situation. I agree about Corbyn's failings and lack of suitability for the position of Labour leader, so I'm not defending him out of some blind sense of loyalty here. The issue is that we have a hopelessly corrupt government, about whom there is some actual evidence of ties to the Putin regime, yet the main narrative being put out by the MSM is that it is Corbyn who is the Russian puppet and the real threat, when this is so blatantly the opposite of reality. I find it just incredibly depressing that so many people are gullible enough to swallow it.

So according to this opinion piece, Theresa May's recent performance has been impressive because she is planning on introducing new measures to crack down on criminally acquired Russian wealth laundered in London, which is EXACTLY what Corbyn has been advocating for years. But, apparently, when he quite rightly raises the very important point that it is largely members of her own party that have their snouts in that particular trough, he is just trying to score cheap political points. And I suppose May wasn't just trying to score cheap political points when she deliberately withheld crucial evidence from Corbyn, yeah?

Careful CB, you look like you are attempting to take Batman's crown as king of the strawmen here. I do not, nor have I ever, read the Squawkbox. I did, for a short while, follow the Canary because I thought it was important to read news and views which run counter to the mainstream narrative, but I soon became acutely aware of how sensationalist and clickbaity their content is and I stopped. Because, you see, I am capable of using critical thinking and recognising when news is being delivered in such a way as to attempt to influence the view of the reader in a certain direction. So for you to recommend that I read the Sun or the Mail to get an insightful view on political issues is utterly laughable. There would be more balance in a room full of drunk toddlers than you will find in the pages of those two sh!t rags. I will ask again... Why on earth would a man who has spent his entire political career standing up to authoritarianism be a supporter of Putin's Russia?

Mother Russia? You do realise that this is the year 2018 and that Russia hasn't been a communist country for nearly three decades, don't you? Yes, of course Corbyn has never made any secret of his socialist principles. It's what he is. So why in the name of god would he be a supporter of Putin? Seriously, why? For those of you who love to stick the boot in to him for being in favour of socialism to now be somehow using that as a way of defending the accusation that he is a Putin stooge is so laughably contradictory. All of his words and actions in relation to Russia in recent years portray a man who is strongly opposed to their authoritarian regime and who is deeply concerned (and rightly so) about the influence that Russian oligarchs have in the British economy. I will concede that the BBC may have slightly redeemed itself this morning, with Andrew Marr actually giving a Tory minister a difficult time for once rather than the usual sycophantic free ride I have come to expect. Johnson's interview with him was like watching a car crash in slow motion. If the matter wasn't so serious it would be hilarious. And for the record, no I don't read the Mail or the Sun, because I don't have the IQ of a jellyfish. This whole media smear on Corbyn for daring to suggest we proceed with due prudence on a potentially very serious matter has just been a deliberately orchestrated distraction to divert attention from the dreadful government handling of the situation and the revelations about the Tories being in the pockets of Russian billionaires. It's so f*cking obvious.

Oh FFS Lord D. You're still completely blinded by your bias and swallowing the bullsh!t hook, line and sinker aren't you. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that Corbyn is siding with Russia. He has already signalled that all the evidence so far points to Russian culpability for the Salisbury poisoning, and he agrees to the sanctions imposed and supports calls for further steps once the evidence is conclusive. He has consistently criticised the Putin regime since at least 2010. He has been openly supportive of the dissident movements campaigning for increased human rights. Recently he has been very vocal about his desire to introduce new legislation to cap the flow of dirty Russian money into Britain. Why the buggering hell would he support the de facto dictator (what a surprise Putin has won in a landslide again today eh?) of an authoritarian crony capitalist country? It makes no sense whatsoever, and the suggestion completely contradicts your ongoing insistence that he is a dangerous commie. Now let's contrast that to BoJo's cringeworthy TV appearance earlier today where he tried his very best to squirm out of answering a question about his acceptance of a £160,000 donation from the wife of a former Putin minister in return for a game of tennis with him, before finally, sheepishly having to admit it. But yeah, let's just ignore inconvenient things like facts and keep slating Corbyn instead eh?

Just wow. Chances won't come any easier than that. Got to score. No excuses for that.

Well if it's OK for Watford to do that then I don't see why not ?

It seems unfair to single out any one player after that horror show, but oh my days Cedric has been absolutely garbage. Just gifts Wigan an attacking opportunity every time the ball goes near him. In mitigation though, it's our first 45 mins in a new formation under a new manager, against an in-form team playing full of confidence who were obviously going to put us under plenty of pressure. I had no illusions that we would go out there and be dominant. My only hope is that Wigan won't be able to keep up the tempo and will burn themselves out. If it goes to ET then that might work in our favour.

WTF!? I'm really not sure how you have managed to take what I posted as evidence that I have swallowed a load of false flag bullsh!t. I haven't made any such suggestion, and I agree it was almost certainly the Russians that carried out the attack. But I like to keep an open mind and wait until the evidence is conclusive on such things before rushing to agree wholeheartedly with the claims of the most toxic, incompetent, corrupt and deceitful government this country has ever known. It's called healthy skepticism. I am, however, deeply concerned that the supposedly impartial BBC is being used as a government propaganda mouthpiece, as we all should be. Their framing of this issue and their insistence of painting JC out to be the bad guy in the current situation is nothing short of disgraceful. If you're so blinded by your pre-existing prejudice that you can't see the level of baseless anti-Corbyn propaganda that is being pushed by the mainstream media at the moment, then I would suggest it is you who are the gullible fool here.

Oh for the love of... LD you and I may disagree on just about everything, but despite that you usually seem intelligent enough to come up with some decent arguments to defend your position on things. But are you really such a f*cking simpleton that you can't see the difference between the editing of the images and the sooooo blatantly obvious intention behind the Corbyn one? Are you happy that the BBC has essentially transformed into the British equivalent of Russia Today?

We've had 3 or 4 inches of snow overnight here in Sheffield and similar in other parts of the north by all accounts. All the cross pennine routes will be closed and I saw a news item warning people to avoid the M62 today. I reckon there's a good chance the game will get postponed.

Fawning over Russia? "As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption." "our capacity to deal with outrages from Russia is compromised by the tidal wave of ill-gotten cash that Russian oligarchs – both allied with and opposed to the Russian government – have laundered through London over the past two decades. We must stop servicing Russian crony capitalism in Britain, and the corrupt billionaires who use London to protect their wealth." "So I will not step back from demanding that Russian money be excluded from our political system. We will be holding the government’s feet to the fire to fully back Labour’s proposed Magnitsky-style sanctions against human rights abusers, along with a wider crackdown on money laundering and tax avoidance." "We agree with the government’s action in relation to Russian diplomats, but measures to tackle the oligarchs and their loot would have a far greater impact on Russia’s elite than limited tit-for-tat expulsions. We are willing to back further sanctions as and when the investigation into the Salisbury attack produces results." Please tell me which part of that qualifies as "fawning over Russia"?

The BBC is denying the image was photoshopped... Of course, BBC - anything you say

Let’s just examine the Tories recent record in regards to Russia… Repeatedly blocked the setting up of an inquiry into the death of Litvinenko Blocked Labour’s tabled motion to introduce anti-money laundering legislation to disrupt the constant flow of dark money into Britain which has so artificially inflated the London housing market. Accepted huge amounts of donations from Russian billionaires, including a £30,000 bung to grant direct access to our defence secretary only weeks ago, right before this poisoning took place. Blocked a motion tabled by Russia to the UN security council calling for an “urgent, civilised investigation” into the poisoning incident. Refused (initially) to cooperate with the terms of the OPCW by providing samples of the nerve agent to Russia for analysis. Sent an over-privileged manchild masquerading as our defence secretary to a press briefing, with a PRE-SCRIPTED statement saying Russia should “go away and shut up”. The government’s handling of this entire situation has been shoddy at best, and downright corrupt at worst. And in the midst of all this current lunacy and rush to jump to conclusions, the only actual sane voice in parliament comes from Corbyn, saying that we should wait until the investigation is complete and then IF it is proved that Russia are responsible, we should provide a response which is actually more robust than the half-baked idea that the government have already come up with. He was among many who called for more evidence of WMDs before going into Iraq remember, and was proved absolutely correct in his stance on that when they, unsurprisingly, couldn’t find any WMDs. Yet despite the Tories quite obvious connections to Russia, Corbyn is the one making all the headlines and is being portrayed as a Russian stooge who is a danger to the security of the UK by pretty much the entire mainstream media, including our own supposedly impartial BBC who thought it was acceptable to host their Newsnight discussion about the issue in front of a backdrop comprising a red-tinted picture of Corbyn in front of the Kremlin that had been photoshopped to make his hat appear more Soviet-looking. What the actual fk!? This is some f*cking Orwellian level of reality-reversing propaganda going on here, where the one guy who is showing calm restraint in proposing that we wait until we have proof before rushing into a course of action we might deeply regret is being utterly destroyed by the press, and the Tory government who are so blatantly up to their eyeballs in dirty Russian money are getting a complete free pass. You only have to look at how differently it was reported in the Daily Mail when May recently stole one of Ed Milliband's old policies to see the kind of media bias I'm talking about. There isn’t a single aspect of Corbyn’s statements to parliament or in his Guardian article which can be construed as anything other than just common f*cking sense when it comes to diplomatic relations with a nuclear-armed superpower. Everything he has said, and the way he has conducted himself, are EXACTLY how any decent person should want their politicians to behave in such potentially serious circumstances. Like I've said throughout this thread, I realise that Corbyn is far from the perfect opposition leader, but once again the media is having to invent synthetic outrage to attack him with because they don't have anything concrete. Why do they constantly have to do this? If he really is as bad and terrible as you lot all make him out to be, then why can't the actual truth speak for itself?

Wow. A breath of fresh air. I've highlighted a few of the comments that really stood out for me. The thing about the players being surpried about the level of intensity is a damning indictment of Pellegrino IMO. What the hell were they actually doing in training and why didn't Les or anybody else above him pick up on this failure!? Truly shocking.

But it's still very important that we are able to make the distinction before deciding on appropriate action. There is a big difference in severity of offence between aggressively carrying out an assassination on British soil and 'allowing' it to happen through negligence, and our response needs to reflect that. Hence why it is absolutely right to suggest waiting until the investigation is complete before jumping to a potentially unreasonable response.