The Scum and the Daily Fail COMPLETELY ignoring the U-turn on their front pages tomorrow whilst the Daily Express states 'May listens to her critics' which isn't even the main headline.

 

The Scum even has an 'exclusive' that solely blames Corbyn and McDonnell for the IRA attacks.

 

The behaviour of these papers is actually despicable.

That merely follows on from this morning's papers claiming that Corbyn refuse to condemn IRA bombs in an interview at the weekend. That claim is a lie. He said very clearly, more tun once, that he condemned all bombings in Northern Ireland.

 

 

Indeed - I blame Sophy Ridge on sky for the ridiculous question clearly intended to create a headline - she tried to smear him by stating he was editor of a left wing labour pamphlet in the 80s and he retorted he wasn't. But she ignored this and continued with her planned questions anyway namely trying to make JC look pro IRA.

 

You would know labour are narrowing the polls....

I don't know why I'm still surprised that The Sun stoops that low, tbh I barely am but it is vile :drama:

 

I'd be absolutely ELATED if this ended up being a disaster for the Tories and Labour somehow won but I still think the polls will be a bit optimistic for them and a bit pessimistic for Tories, because this is Britain after all.

Suurely they can't run that propaganda fake terrorist Tory Stooge piece the day after a fatal suspected terrorist attack?

In my opinion as someone who won't be voting for his party (although that's due to where I am more than anything else, because it is a Lib Dem-Tory fight and any vote for Labour just means my Tory MP will have a safer ride home), yes he does. The campaign trail has shown him to be inspiring and he has policies worth getting behind.

 

Policies like removing all the legislation holding the unions in check?! That's the sort of pledge that horrifies older voters and keeps them in the Tory camp, outweighing Labours more populist policies.

 

That merely follows on from this morning's papers claiming that Corbyn refuse to condemn IRA bombs in an interview at the weekend. That claim is a lie. He said very clearly, more tun once, that he condemned all bombings in Northern Ireland.

 

In terms of where he stands on the IRA as a whole though, that's somewhat ambiguous.

Suurely they can't run that propaganda fake terrorist Tory Stooge piece the day after a fatal suspected terrorist attack?

 

Annnd they did! Disgusting.

 

I bet they are hoping to conflate Corbyn with terrorism on a tragic day like this, too :( Vile, vile paper.

In terms of where he stands on the IRA as a whole though, that's somewhat ambiguous.

How? The phrase "all bombing" very clearly includes the IRA.

Policies like removing all the legislation holding the unions in check?! That's the sort of pledge that horrifies older voters and keeps them in the Tory camp, outweighing Labours more populist policies.

Has he pledged to remove ALL legislation? Or just the more recent legislation such as that making it harder to vote to go on strike than to vote to leave the EU?

How? The phrase "all bombing" very clearly includes the IRA.

 

I didn't mention bombing specifically - I meant his general attitude towards the IRA.

 

 

Has he pledged to remove ALL legislation? Or just the more recent legislation such as that making it harder to vote to go on strike than to vote to leave the EU?

 

*Any* weakening of Trade Union legislation is a backwards step IMO - though that may be coloured by memories of how unions could virtually hold the government to ransom in the 70's. The 'Winter Of Discontent' was particularly notorious for unofficial strikes.

 

 

I didn't mention bombing specifically - I meant his general attitude towards the IRA.

*Any* weakening of Trade Union legislation is a backwards step IMO - though that may be coloured by memories of how unions could virtually hold the government to ransom in the 70's. The 'Winter Of Discontent' was particularly notorious for unofficial strikes.

It's only a backwards step if you have a problem with the very existence of trade unions. Repealing legislation introduced in the last few years is far from a "return to the 70s".

It's only a backwards step if you have a problem with the very existence of trade unions. Repealing legislation introduced in the last few years is far from a "return to the 70s".

 

I have no problem with the existence of Unions, as long as they don't forget the original essence of the Trade Union movement.

 

Indeed - I blame Sophy Ridge on sky for the ridiculous question clearly intended to create a headline - she tried to smear him by stating he was editor of a left wing labour pamphlet in the 80s and he retorted he wasn't. But she ignored this and continued with her planned questions anyway namely trying to make JC look pro IRA.

 

You would know labour are narrowing the polls....

 

SKY part-owned by the man T. May had dinner with recently, a man who is trying to get it Fox-ified owned totally by him to spread unlimited propaganda. What a shock!

I have no problem with the existence of Unions, as long as they don't forget the original essence of the Trade Union movement.

Which would be to look after the interests of their members, just like the EU really. While not many people would want to repeal most of the 1980s legislation the more recent curbs are a clear attempt to emasculate the trade union mocvement altogether. Watch out for more of the same - and further restrictions on their right to donate money to the Labour Party - if the Tories win next month.

SKY part-owned by the man T. May had dinner with recently, a man who is trying to get it Fox-ified owned totally by him to spread unlimited propaganda. What a shock!

Ah, another one of my predictions for what a May-led Tory government will do. It would not surprise me at all to see neutrality rules for some broadcasters (i.e. not the old terrestrial channels) relaxed or dropped altogether. No prizes for guessing where Sky's bias would be.

Which would be to look after the interests of their members, just like the EU really.

 

But they went too far, trying to run the country themselves rather than sticking to their job.

 

As for the EU, there were 17.4m people here who didn't believe the EU had the country's best interests at heart...

Thanks to propaganda.

Thanks to propaganda.

 

Both sides presented their *reasons*, so either both sides employed 'propaganda' or neither did.

Edited May 23, 20178 yr by vidcapper

Both sides presented their *reasons*, so either both sides employed 'propaganda' or neither did.

 

errr no. Not at all. Pretty much every REASON given by the Leave side has been seen to be a lie already. It was pure propaganda. While there was some BS spouted by G Osbourne (now found his true calling as a crap editor of a Tory paper) & Cameron, the majority of pro-EU facts n figures by the campaign and sober-well-informed individuals was and is pretty accurate. As we will see.

 

Almost nothing paraded as a Brexit "fact" (including that figure on the side of the bus) has yet to be proven as anything other than rhetoric from right-wingers willing to say anything to get their way. Witness (as I keep saying) Farage's frothing at the mouth that the referendum wasn't the end of the matter when he thought he'd lost, that there MUST be another one as the result was SO close.

 

Funny how he doesn't hold that view now.

 

Feel free to provide any Brexit Leave campaign facts that have been proven to be accurate....

errr no. Not at all. Pretty much every REASON given by the Leave side has been seen to be a lie already. It was pure propaganda. While there was some BS spouted by G Osbourne (now found his true calling as a crap editor of a Tory paper) & Cameron, the majority of pro-EU facts n figures by the campaign and sober-well-informed individuals was and is pretty accurate. As we will see.

 

Almost nothing paraded as a Brexit "fact" (including that figure on the side of the bus) has yet to be proven as anything other than rhetoric from right-wingers willing to say anything to get their way. Witness (as I keep saying) Farage's frothing at the mouth that the referendum wasn't the end of the matter when he thought he'd lost, that there MUST be another one as the result was SO close.

 

Funny how he doesn't hold that view now.

 

Feel free to provide any Brexit Leave campaign facts that have been proven to be accurate....

 

This means nothing - one sides reasons can always be dismissed as 'propaganda' by their opponents.

 

Both sides claims about what would happen in the event of Brexit were speculations, not facts, and therefore neither side can claim to have the moral high ground.

 

Quite apart from the claims made about the future, there were existing cons to our membership that are facts, not speculations.

 

I've mentioned some of them here before, but they tend to get dismissed as 'unimportant', without the realization that what may be unimportant to one person, might be quintessential to someone else. It is the net effect of all the pros & cons of EU membership that led to people voting how they did, not just 'racism' as Remainers love to claim.

This means nothing - one sides reasons can always be dismissed as 'propaganda' by their opponents.

 

Both sides claims about what would happen in the event of Brexit were speculations, not facts, and therefore neither side can claim to have the moral high ground.

 

Quite apart from the claims made about the future, there were existing cons to our membership that are facts, not speculations.

 

I've mentioned some of them here before, but they tend to get dismissed as 'unimportant', without the realization that what may be unimportant to one person, might be quintessential to someone else. It is the net effect of all the pros & cons of EU membership that led to people voting how they did, not just 'racism' as Remainers love to claim.

 

we're not talking about petty rules and regulations though, we're talking about the economic future of our country and it's potential break-up. Petty rules & regulations can be changed with a bit of campaigning. The remain side "speculations" were based on solid facts and likely results. The Leave lies were all just wild promises and misrepresentations. You choose to believe them, which is your right, but you don't offer proof that they were not exactly that (because, let's be honest, there is none). Nobody on Buzzjack has.

 

The main reason for Brexit, far and away, was immigrants. Any reduction in immigration will be almost entirely down to the UK economy going tits up, not due to leaving the EU. May failed for 6 years to reduce immigration even when she had ABSOLUTE control over the majority of that immigration (which is NON-EU). This, as I say, is a fact. From the governments own figures.