hypochondriac

Corbyn handled anti semitism investigations horrendously. That would still have been the case whatever the press reported. Senior Jewish Labour figures would still have been heavily critical of him personally, the human rights commission would still have been investigating Labour. Corbyn would still have been viewed negatively by the public for his associations with various terrorist organisations and many within the electorate would still have been suspicious that he actually had a very low opinion of the UK and did a lot of consortobg with the wrong sort of people. Most of the public would have come to these conclusions even if they had been presented in an entirely factual manner and you even said yourself he couldn't even pretend to be patriotic so even if the press had just released video footage of him looking scruffy, not singing and his negative views of the monarchy etc they would have come to those conclusions anyway.

All press bias has an impact. I think it suits certain agendas to over inflate the influence of the press and pretend that there's some giant right wing conspiracy to brainwash people into not voting for Corbyn. It's a nonsense but it allows people to not face up to the truth which is that corbyn was and is an appaling leader of a mainstream political party. At least Starmer looks vaguely like he could be prime minister, but some people within Labour would rather keep corbyn even now then try someone who has a whiff of being less extreme even if it increases their chances of winning an election. No amount of positive press coverage in the world could have redeemed corbyn and some of his actions.

Well in that case I couldn't disagree more strongly. I don't consider the majority of the public to be mindless robots. There has always been a lot to dislike about Corbyn including some of the people who follow him. The press didn't exactly have to try hard to be critical of his Iran and Russia links, his wreath laying exploits, his statements after Salisbury, his slowness to react on antisemitism, his candidness about never using the nuclear deterrent etc. The British public didn't need the fading British press to tell them that they didn't want corbyn in charge of the country.

You can have a difference of opinion but to suggest the BBC is right leaning or that the guardian doesn't have a left bias is pretty mental. I have left wing labour supporting mates who would consider that view pretty crazy.

In a hypothetical scenario where all printed press was strictly factual, I still think that corbyn would have left a bad taste in many people's mouths and he would have still lost the election. Agree?

So the BBC are biased to the right and the Guardian are unbiased? Are you insane?

Well that's a shock because I agree with you. Like I said, as long as he gives up his titles and not the cake and eat it approach then he can do whatever he likes and the best of luck to him.

It isn't if the want to forge "a progressive" new direction from within the Royal Family.

I fail to see what her skin colour has to do with anything. I personally didn't even know she was mixed race until the press made a big deal out of it, I expect many others were in the same boat.

Where have I lapped up anything? I just think it's pretty disrespectful to the Queen to release something like this out of the blue and I don't think they should receive financial support and living off their titles if they don't want the responsibilities. Give up their titles and they can do whatever they like and it's no one elses business. I can also make my own mind up when they start lecturing others about how to live whilst jetsetting around the world. I don't need a hostile press to know that makes them look bad.

"don't see Blair and New Labour as a good thing apart from getting elected." lol.

Makes you think if it's that easy why every other Labour leader failed to do that. I also don't like the narrative that corbyn has been so unsuccessful simply plbecause some of the newspapers printed negative stuff about him. He brought most of it on himself as I said.

Abd that's fine assuming they will be giving up their titles and privileges and financial support that goes with that.

It's pretty tacky when you realise their intention is to profit off their titles but with none of the responsibilities that come with them. Kind of typifies modern society and apparently the Queen feels really let down.

You said the press didn't go after Blair because he was a watered down tory. You talk a load of old tripe.

Hold on so the press gave Blair an easy ride because he pretended to be a tory? Is that what you're saying?

Great reply.

One of the world's leading mass murderers of Muslims, killing almost entirely for political reasons and yet not a terrorist?

If the media has such a massive effect, why did Tony Blair win by a landslide not so long ago?

It's not a definition I came up with, it's the dictionary definition. Not all military foreign policies involve illegal acts of violence against usually civilian populations. If you like you can give a narrower definition- you can only be labelled a terrorist if you instruct groups of armed men to shoot and kill unarmed civilians in cold blood. Does that make someone a terrorist? It's not whole units, it's the person almost solely in charge of various militia and armed groups commiting murders under his instruction. No man in the world involved in more death in more countries and yet you don't consider him a terrorist?

Interesting isn't it. Its not often you find a player that goes downhill at such a young age as 28. It's an affliction which I've seen from some other East African players too. They also tend to be unbelievable for the youth teams too. Curious.

What's that got to do with anything? I asked how Solemani was not a terrorist considering he clearly meets the definition. Your response was something irrelevant about being high up in the Iranian regime. Victims of Solemani are incredibly thankful and definitely consider him to be a terrorist, I reckon they'd be in a good position to know.

Threatening to destroy something isn't the same as doing it. If trump deliberately destroys cultural sights then fair enough but he hasn't. You're now changing the parameters, he very clearly meets the definition of a terrorist and to pretend otherwise simply because he was an important figure in Iran is bizarre. Many experts on the matter don't believe its weakened the US position, many are suggesting it has badly weakened Iran and they have few options because they aren't mad enough to start a war. My main worry is that Trump doesn't really have a wider plan, but I'm certainly not upset that this terrorist has been dealt with, and the thousands of families who have been victimised by him are currently celebrating.

"A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." He fits the definition exactly.

Corbyn deserved everything he got. Almost all the criticism he got for things like supporting terrorists or inaction with regards to antisemitism is of his own making.